Abortion

hazlnut said:
Thread is over dope.

I won.

It wasn't really fair, but I still won.

So, I'm cutting the cord on you.
Click to expand...

You did squat. Provide evidence that an unborn is something other than a distinct individual human being and person at any stage of development.
 
hazlnut said:
Thread is over dope.

I won.

It wasn't really fair, but I still won.

So, I'm cutting the cord on you.
Click to expand...
It's not over arsefeatures, one very specific point has not been answered.
Barbera Boxers claim that an infant is born " when it gets home, when it belongs to its family", why do you not attempt to address that point.
For 48 hours it is outside of the host body but has no legal right to life and can be aborted as an unborn.

What is the fetus regarded after it is completely separated from the mother, cord cut but not yet born because it is not born until it gets home and BELONGS to its family?
 
WoLong said:
Every cell in an unborn's body has a different genetic code than every cell in the mother's body. Do you have something to support that an unborn is not an individual, or is not a human being?
Click to expand...

And some people have two differing genetic codes.

(Excerpt) EXPLAIN this. You are a doctor and one of your patients, a 52-year- old
woman, comes to see you, very upset. Tests have revealed something
unbelievable about two of her three grown-up sons. Although
she conceived them naturally with her husband, who is definitely
their father, the tests say she isn't their biological mother.
Somehow she has given birth to somebody else's children.

This isn't a trick question - it's a genuine case that Margot Kruskall, a
doctor at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston,
Massachusetts, was faced with five years ago. The patient, who we will
call Jane, needed a kidney transplant, and so her family underwent blood
tests to see if any of them would make a suitable donor. When the results
came back, Jane was hoping for good news.

Instead she received a hammer blow. The letter told her outright that
two of her three sons could not be hers. What was going on?

It took Kruskall and her team two years to crack the riddle. In the end
they discovered that Jane is a chimera, a mixture of two individuals -
non-identical twin sisters - who fused in the womb and grew into a single
body. Some parts of her are derived from one twin, others from the other.
It seems bizarre that this can happen at all, but Jane's is not an
isolated case. Around 30 similar instances of chimerism have been
reported, and there are probably many more out there who will never
discover their unusual origins. (End)
http://www.katewerk.com/chimera.html

So, who is Jane? She has two distinct sets of DNA so, according to you, she must be two people. Will she collect two pensions? If she's caught drunk driving can the other human being who is living inside her apply for a licence? What if she's sentenced to jail? Why would two people have to go to jail? Would there be a compromise and Jane serve 1/2 the sentence? Or is the idea that differing DNA represents two people nothing more than complete nonsense?

(Excerpt)
Scientists Discover Children’s Cells Living in Mothers’ Brains

It is remarkable that it is so common for cells from one individual to integrate into the tissues of another distinct person. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as singular autonomous individuals, and these foreign cells seem to belie that notion, and suggest that most people carry remnants of other individuals. As remarkable as this may be, stunning results from a new study show that cells from other individuals are also found in the brain. In this study, male cells were found in the brains of women and had been living there, in some cases, for several decades. What impact they may have had is now only a guess, but this study revealed that these cells were less common in the brains of women who had Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting they may be related to the health of the brain. (End)
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...cover-childrens-cells-living-in-mothers-brain

Talk about not being able to get someone out of your mind! :whoa:

And here's an article (http://abcnews.go.com/Primetime/story?id=2315693&page=1) where DNA "proves" a woman's biological children are not her children. :rolleyes:

So, what does it all mean? It means the anti-abortionists jumped on the DNA wagon while the wheels were falling off. Some people can have the same DNA. Some can have differing DNA. Some can have two set of DNA. And on and on it goes.
 
007 said:
But what about outside your body, why the 2 to 3 day wait before the infant is considered a life?
Click to expand...

I explained that already. Ms. Boxer was trying to get a point across to an ignorant, obnoxious guy who was badgering her about child birth when she had birthed 3 children.
 
hazlnut said:
A non-viable fetus CAN NOT live outside the womb. The NON-VIABLE fetus is a growing extension of the mother's body.

BOOM!

END OF THREAD!!

Thank you, thank you, I'm here all week...
Click to expand...

thanks for once again proving Dems ignore science when it violates their ideology.
 
WoLong said:
But if you did go up to a woman and 'grab her ass' that would not give her the right to murder you. The right to life supersedes all other rights. We simply do not have the right to murder another human being under any circumstance other than to protect our own life or the life of another.
Click to expand...

And no human being has the right to the use of another person's organs and blood and body. If a person required dialysis and you had the same blood type would you be required to hook yourself up to that person so they could use your kidneys to clean their blood?
 
Obama Hates America said:
First of all the gobblement would argue with you that you have an unfettered right to do what you want with your own body. To argue otherwise is just laughable.

Second of all, the woman took actions to put that baby in her body in the first place. Unless of course you are arguing that she didn't have the capacity to understand what she was doing when she willingly allowed a penis to penetrate her vagina and commit thrusting motions until seminal fluid was released and traveled through the canal potentially fertilzing an egg if conditions are optimal? Are you saying a woman does not understand that process? Are you saying a women does not understand the risks involved with spreading her legs and allowing penetration?

It isn't like some random baby is choosing her as a host against her will and she took no actions to cause that baby to take up residence.
Click to expand...

A person takes actions that may result in an auto accident the moment they get in a car. Should we do nothing to help them if they're injured? If a piece of glass is stuck in their body should the doctors leave it there or remove it?
 
007 said:
You answering a question I didn't ask.
What about the 2 days( on average) after the cord is cut before the thing, fetus, infant, collection of cells, whatever you want to call it, is regarded as a life.
It's no longer inside a woman's body, but is not viewed as a life by Barbera Boxer!

What is it in that time frame?
Click to expand...

She was giving an overall picture by use of a story. As I have continually said she was talking to an ignorant fool who was badgering her. The same way one might explain something to a child.
 
Howey said:
human being
noun
1.
any individual of the genus Homo, especially a member of the species Homo sapiens.
Click to expand...

there you have it.....the unborn child is a distinct individual, identifiable by it's unique DNA...it is also undeniably homo sapiens.....thus, by your definition, a human being....
 
WoLong said:
Please provide some evidence that we have a 'right to our bodies.'
Click to expand...

Grab a woman's ass and find out. :)

Secondly, removing an unborn directly results in its death, and is thus murder.
Click to expand...

No, it's not murder. Human beings are individual creatures. They do not live inside the body of other human beings. Your argument is absurd.
 
apple0154 said:
And no human being has the right to the use of another person's organs and blood and body.
Click to expand...

unless of course one of those human beings is the mother and the other is her child......you believe in that instance one human being can do anything she wants with the other.......
 
WoLong said:
Having a distinct genetic code proves that an unborn is not 'a growing extension of the mothers body.' Please feel free to provide some evidence that a fetus is not a person because it's dependent upon its mother.
Click to expand...

A distinct genetic code proves nothing as I noted previously. There are people who carry two distinct genetic codes. They are not considered two people, whether it be by friends or legally.
 
Ok so boxers opinion that an infant can be killed legally at anytime from the point it is born to the point it arrives home is one you agree with?
Do you believe Also that families own their children?
That was boxers clear statement.

Badgered?
She was simply asked for a clear answer and couldn't give one.
Much as you cannot.
 
Obama Hates America said:
We can agree on some things, but I won't compromise my principles. You compromise yours
Click to expand...

Your statement is everything wrong in politics today. It's good to make your stance and stand for something. But when it comes to no compromise that's when nations fail. You aren't the only party in America. No party is the only party in America. No party is 100% correct about everything.

Your breakdown of my statement is purely pathetic, I'm embarassed for you. I know what you stand for, you don't have to elaborate. I know what sheep/parrot party people stand for. You correcting my own opinion is a totalitarian move, you think everyone has to think like you! Not my statement, that everyone should have access to birth control. Learn to use your own brain to create your own thoughts.....parrot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top