DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on September 02, 2012, 01:37:43 AM
-
http://www.withfetus.com/20120402.html (http://www.withfetus.com/20120402.html)
Thought provoking , very very very.
Some times disgusting .
Apt to maky one cry, I can just imagine the artist mixing tears in the watercolor.
Art quality is not great , but simple faces express strong emotion.
-
It is a pretty well done cartoon. The artwork is less than impressive, but the way in which it deals with rather complex attitudes in four panels or so is impressive.
Better than I expected, judging from the title.
If not for the Internet, cartoons like this would be rare. Zines were the only place to see these before the Internet took over. Now zines seem to be going extinct.
-
Yes the graphic art is not first rate , and the point of view is very diffrent from mine.
But a serious examination of ones own POV is something you just don't see very often.
These caricters are in conflict and struggle with internal questions and weep.
If I could I would hand deliver this to all of congress.
Seems as if lots of them on both sides could use the sex ed.
In particular I am thinking of congressman Akin who is near my own POV but recently made a very public error of fact that he could have and should have easily avoided.
-
The problem with Akin's point of view is that there is no proof that a raped woman is less li8kely to conceive than a woman who is willing. And in any case, to make any sense, it would have to be 100% effective. Drugged and drunken women would still have willing sex.
I agree that if one starts with the assumption that God personally authorizes all conceptions of any sort and all humans are "born in sin" anyway, then it is logical that all abortions are a violation of divine will, and, since God is in charge and humans are not, all abortions should be made impossible.
I do not, however accept either premise. I hold the opinion that all people have the right to decide whether to reproduce or not, and that sex is as valid recreational a activity as it is a reproductive one. Conception is, like so many things in the universe, a matter of chance, and God does not intervene any more than he creates parasites and tidal waves and volcanoes. I think that each woman has the right to decide entirely on her own whether to give birth or not. The moral judgement, if any, is hers and hers alone.
Todd Akin is a medieval-minded creep, but he did win the primary. I fail to see why he should be forced by the Republican Party to step down, since his views do not deffer from Ryan and others, also creepy and medieval.
-
Killing persons who are all grown up is also contrary to Gods will.
How do athiests decide what is good or bad?
In this comic one of the abortion clinic staff is a Christian who struggles with the conflict of taking life .
Another is not so devout , but still struggles with the taking of life.
Even if you can leave God entirely out of it , ending a human life should not be taken lightly.
-
I did not say to take it lightly, I said that it is not my affair to decide what a woman chooses to do. She is the only one that should have a say in it.
-
So if your wife chooses to kill you , you just gotta let her?
-
So if your wife chooses to kill you , you just gotta let her?
===============================================
Only if I am in fetus form in her uterus, which I deem to be impossible.
It would only be a bit more unlikely that I got there through rape or incest.
It would clearly require some sort of transmigration of souls, and of course, if souls can do that, then abortion would not be thwarting God's will, would it. God would simply reassign the soul to a better choice of fetus.
Reincarnation renders the entire antiabortion argument absurd.
It is pretty hard to believe that God cares a lot about the survival of fetuses, since many species of reptiles, fish and amphibians give birth to 30,000 tiny baby critters at a time, and 29,892 are eaten immediately.
Of course, this is not about what I am about to allow to happen, but about passing a law.
-
Now that it is you we are talking about.
When you were in fetus form your state could recognise your person hood.
And probly did.
-
When you were in fetus form your state could recognise your person hood.
And probly did.
==============================
In 1942?
No, not at all.
And anyway, it does not matter. It was not a matter for any government. Only for my parents.
-
Lucky for us all then that your parents resisted the allure of aborting your life whenever you inevitably became annoying.
-
Again, I am for a woman's right to abort a fetus, not to commit infanticide.
-
Again, I am for a woman's right to abort a fetus, not to commit infanticide.
I am against making this distinction.
-
You have an egg for breakfast and convince yourself you have eaten a whole chicken.
But you have not.
With regard to the cartoon strip, it does stress the ambiguities and emotions involved with a woman having an abortion, and does so quite well.
As I have said, the decision to have or not have an abortion is left up to the woman by nature. I oppose putting the government into the issue. It is a woman's issue by nature, not a man's issue. Women should not be allowed to mandate a vasectomy on men, either.
There is a moral dilemma, and that moral dilemma should be that of ONLY the woman involved, NOT some flake like Ryan or Akin or a bunch of officially sexless male critters in the Holy Mother Church.
-
You have an egg for breakfast and convince yourself you have eaten a whole chicken.
But you have not.
Could you explain this a bit?
Why have I not?
-
Because, duh, an egg is not a chicken. Anyone can tell the difference. The lack of limbs and mobility is a dead giveaway.
-
A fried chicken is chicken.
An egg is a chicken if it is a chicken egg.
A turtle egg is a turtle, that is the only way they start.
Flys are even worse , they not only lay eggs , they have larval and pupal stages before they fledge out as flies , but each one necessacerily goes through each life stage in turn each one is the same creature it began as even though diffrent in size and shape.
Your point will be taken as true , then I guess bald people are not persons either, baldness is a distinctive diffrence . People who do not speak a language I understand or wear strange colored skin have distinctive diffrences too.
I don't guess you could tell a chicken that her eggs are not chickens , they are smarter than that.
-
An egg is not a chicken. Rant all you want. That will never make it so.
-
An egg is not a chicken. Rant all you want. That will never make it so.
What ever made it not so?
The egg becomes the chick which becomes the chicken, not with sudden transformations , but as a process that continues seamlessly from conception to death.
The egg is not in any fundamental way not a chicken.
I think it unfair for you to caricterise these last few posts in this thread as "rant" I am merely pointing out that your assertion that an egg is not a chicken is a logic free opinion that you keep for its convienience.
If someone were to assert that a teacher is not a person I expect that you would endevor to prove that having distinction from most does not really constitute seaparation from the type.
-
The egg is not in any fundamental way not a chicken.
=====================================
Try this: buy a dozen eggs and set them on your counter for a month and watch to see how many become mobile.
The assumption is that God wants every egg to become a functioning living being. Observation of most species reveal that this tends not to happen. A turtle lays 30 eggs and after a month, if there are even TWO baby turtles left alive, it is a lot. Fish and amphibians lay THOUSANDS of eggs. Many never hatch. Most are eaten. Most of the juveniles are eaten within hours of hatching. That is God's Plan.
A teacher is, of course, a person, but a person who is not a teacher is only POTENTIALLY a teacher.
An egg is POTENTIALLY and occasionally a chicken. It is also potentially part of a well-balanced breakfast.
-
I havn't bought a live chicken or a live egg in quite a while.
All the chickens I bring home seem to wait quietly to be fried .
Live eggs on the other hand are cared for by their mother and acheive the motile form pretty soon if kept warm.
Within the shell , just before hatching is a chick, even though it doesn't look like a bird right then .
I don't see you refuteing the idea that an immature chicken is also a chicken , even if the size and shape are diffrent.
I do see you dragging Gods will into the argumnent , I don't know why you do that.
-
I do see you dragging Gods will into the argumnent , I don't know why you do that.
===========================
Because morality either originates with God or is determined by humans based on what makes logical sense. It makes logical sense to allow a woman to decide whether to bear a child or not.
On the other hand, of morality comes from God, then we need to observe what God's will is from his creation.
I say that either way, leaving the matter up to the woman makes the most sense. It is not society's business, unless society is responsible for rearing all children, and that is obviously NOT the case.
-
In Zen Buddhism there's a saying. "Wood is wood, ash is ash." In other words when you put a piece of wood into the fireplace, it's wood. After you burn it, it's ash. It doesn't matter what the ash was, it's ash at that point. That's what you're dealing with, ash.
When a women decides to have an abortion she isn't aborting a living human. She's aborting a fetus. A fetus is a fetus, a living human is a living human.
Deal with what is, not what was or might be.
BSB
-
I agree with this. A fetus a POTENTIAL human being.
-
"Firewood becomes ash. Ash cannot turn back into firewood again. However, we should not view ash as after and firewood as before. We should know that firewood dwells in the dharma position of firewood and it has its own before and after. Although there is before and after, past and future are cut off. Ash stays at the position of ash and it has its own before and after. .............................Life is a position at one time; death is also a position at one time. " Dozen
I whish more people understood things in this way. There would be a lot less suffering in the world if they did.
BSB
-
Ash is a few ingredients of wood , seaprated from the volitile ingredients by heat.
In this case a living thing has died and been decomposed.
In the conversion of a Fetus to an abortion a livins thing is what you start with, and a dead thing is what you end up with , comparing the fetus to ash is putting this process in reverse order.
In the case of a fetus vs ash, there is not much simularity, there is no missing element, all of the ingredients that compose a person are there.
It is convienient to maintain the fiction that a fetus is an unliving unfeeling thing , but as a matter of science this seems to be a error that we believe just to make out lives easyer.
-
How obtuse.
BSB
-
What is wrong with making our lives easier?
If you want a harder life, go beat your dirty clothes on a rock in the river.
-
An unexamined life is not worth living.
http://www.consciousearth.us/socrates-unexamined-life.html (http://www.consciousearth.us/socrates-unexamined-life.html)
It is hard to do without an outside POV now and then.
So how exactly is a fetus alike to ash?
Wouldn't the killed fetus be more alike to the ash?
How is an egg unlike to a chicken?
Are there really any Chickens that were never eggs? Chicken is a lifestage , as is chick,as is egg, of a creature.
If I make my life ea easy as it can possibly be made , not counting the cost to others , would I qualify as a psycopath?
-
If I make my life ea easy as it can possibly be made , not counting the cost to others , would I qualify as a psycopath?
==================
Are you actually saying that allowing some women you have never met and will never meet to decide to bear a child or not, rather than YOU deciding it, would make you a psychopath?
I suggest that is truly stupid.
If you cannot tell the difference between a chicken and an egg, you might be seriously deranged, however.
-
I can tell the diffrence between a chicken and a person, which is much more pertanant.
If spotting an essential diffrence from myself gives me license to dehumanise, who can I not kill?
Only people who are enough like me to have family resemblence?
I cannot accept as a fact that an egg is an essentially diffrent creature than the chicken within it or the chicken it will later be , it seems that it is essentially one creature and not two diffrent things at all.
I cannot accedpt the argument that wood is just potential ash or because it caqn become ash it is worth no more than ash, the transition is an important event to the nature of the wood and the ash.
Ash is alike to the corpse I will someday be , a fetus is more alike to me.
-
You have a right to believe whatever you wish.
But you do not have a right to impose your views on others.
Let others figure out what to do with their own lives.
-
You have a right to believe whatever you wish.
But you do not have a right to impose your views on others.
Let others figure out what to do with their own lives.
I can't believe I have a right to kill you do I?
If my life was made a lot easyer by killing someone , this would not be an unusual situation , but the right to kill should have severe restriction and require justifacation.
If I was killing someone that you did not know , you might try to talk me out of it , and would it be appropriate for me to say "mind your own business"?
You are not trying to say that a very close relationship bestows a right to kill are you?
Not anyone eleses business who gets killed?
-
I am not a fetus.
Your arguments are spurious.
A fetus is not a human being, and that is all that there is to it.
-
I am not a fetus.
Your arguments are spurious.
A fetus is not a human being, and that is all that there is to it.
Neither you nor I can exist without being a fetus first.
It is a description of a life stage , not a diffrent sort of creature, not even a diffrent individual.
No human being can avoid being a fetus and that is all there is to it.
-
Ask me if I give a shit about that.
A woman's choice trumps any fetus or group of fetuses within her. The fate of the fetus should be with the woman who will bear the child.
-
Ask me if I give a shit about that.
A woman's choice trumps any fetus or group of fetuses within her. The fate of the fetus should be with the woman who will bear the child.
This is a good encapsulation of how abortion harms all of us including those not directly involved at all.
We are all becoming hardened, accustomed to not giving a shit about the death of human beings.
-
Funny how differently different people, cultures, philosophy's, religions, see things. Time appears like a continuum to some. You start at A and proceed to B, then C, etc., until the end. Even the "end" isn't the end to many. The continuum continues on to some sort of afterlife. The possible enjoyment, or lack there of, of this "after"life is determined by how you traveled the first stretch of the continuum. The first stretch being "life" itself. Life than afterlife. A very strange set of concepts from where I stand.
The Buddhist's state of mind called nirvana appears like a part of a continuum to those who think that way. It isn't though. It's life seen in a different way. There's no time or space involved. We don't really understand time yet. We seem to experience it but that's an illusion. I suspect the mind is set up to see things in a certain way strictly for the purpose of our survival and doesn't grasp the reality of experience at all. All you have to do is trace the history of human thought to see that it's really a history of illusions.
I've given up trying to share a different view with most people. It's a waste of time. When you find someone who's open to it though it's very rewarding. Unfortunately there's very little reward left here at 3DHS.
BSB
-
I think Socraties would love the internet, and I think he would spend a lot of time communicating with people who disagreed with him.
Earlyer you shared the anchient observation that ash does not become wood.
To me this is a truth that required scientific type perception.
What we call the laws of thermodynamics makes the same observation , and the modern name for it is enthropy.
It was the truth before it was observed , but what was required of the observer to perceive it?
-
Dozen's point is not a scientific one really. The point is that each moment has it's own characteristics. While it's connected to the past and the future, it has its own singularity.
A fetus is at a position of its own. While that position is connected directionally to prior and future positions, it is in its own position. An abortion takes place during that certain position along the human continuum and cannot be compared to what occurs at a future time when a human is at a different position.
BSB
-
Let's look foward to a defense attorney trying to push that bit of
psychobabble, deep philosophical/metaphysical content, when his client is being prosecuted for 2 murders, in the death of a pregnant woman. Interesting that it hasn't been tried yet....at least not that I've read. Perhaps Bsb can produce some examples of such
-
If I was killing someone that you did not know , you might try to talk me out of it , and would it be appropriate for me to say "mind your own business"?
Answering Those Who Are Only "Personally Pro-Life" - Quick Thought (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MWDHpx2Edvk#)
-
Let's just let a woman decide for herself. Let those who are so sure that abortion is murder convince pregnant women, adopt their children and stop trying to get the government involved.
No reason why a woman cannot decide for herself. No reason to allow people she does not know try to jail her for not agreeing with her right to run her own life.
I don't bother to watch propaganda videos.
-
Dozen won the debate. Abortion is legal. ;D
-
Who said it wasn't?? :o
-
So much for any examples ;)
-
Abortion is legal.
so was slavery and like slavery this horror will one day end!
i am quite sure of that.
(http://www.circleofprayer.com/abortionposter4.jpg)
-
Icky photos prove nothing. Gall bladder operations and heart transplants also make for rather gruesome photos.
The point is, a woman has a right to decide for herself what to do with her own body. Why should you have any say in it?
-
No, the point is, the wreckless effort in trying to claim an unborn child is merely a "fetus", thus attempting to dehumanize that child, which many courts, across this country, have prosecuted murderers for
The "say in it", is for the human child who HAS NO SAY
-
There is no human child.
There is only a fetus.
Fetuses have no say because they cannot talk.
The woman's right to her life trumps anything that any fetus would say, if the fetus could talk, if it could, which it can't.
-
Icky photos prove nothing. Gall bladder operations and heart transplants also make for rather gruesome photos.
Gall bladders don't have fingers and little feet.
Gall bladders are not babies!
When a woman is "showing" everyone asks "when is the baby due?".
It's obvious it is a baby.
Gallbladder my ass!
(http://www.lifeisaprayer.com/sites/lifeisaprayer.com/files/articles/religion/abortion_rape-etc/fetus_sucking_thumb.jpg)
The point is, a woman has a right to decide for herself what to do with her own body.
Why should you have any say in it?
When pregnant a woman's body contains another human being.
The baby has every right to live and killing a baby is not justified
because "the mother might not have enough money left over for her car payment".
It's a ghastly horror that scars America, and one day it will end.
Hopefully the numbers will continue to fall downward from this outrage upon humanity.
(http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/ArtAndPhoto-Fronts/HEALTH/080117/AP_AbortionRate.gif)
-
No, the point is, the wreckless effort in trying to claim an unborn child is merely a "fetus", thus attempting to dehumanize that child, which many courts, across this country, have prosecuted murderers for
The "say in it", is for the human child who HAS NO SAY
There is no human child.
There is only a fetus.
See what I mean?
-
Dozen's point is not a scientific one really. The point is that each moment has it's own characteristics. While it's connected to the past and the future, it has its own singularity.
A fetus is at a position of its own. While that position is connected directionally to prior and future positions, it is in its own position. An abortion takes place during that certain position along the human continuum and cannot be compared to what occurs at a future time when a human is at a different position.
BSB
Does this relate to the idea that you cannot step into the same river twice?
A human being can be imagined to be an object , but this is a very incomplete description.
A human being has a body and a dynamic aspect , a flux and change that is the cariteristic of life .
A human mind has the brain it needs to exist , it is also the constant operation that this brain is performing.
The object of a human being with no dynamic aspects present is a corpse , whose only change is decay.
The dynamic aspect of a human being without a body is extremely hard to observe, impossible to prove that it even can be.
-
I just say, let the woman decide for herself whether to give birth or not.
-
I just say, let the woman decide for herself whether to give birth or not.
Why can't you let her decide for herself whether to become pregnant or not?
Not becoming pregnant at all is less wear and tear than having an abortion, with no internal conflict or ambiguous morality .
-
Like not stepping in the same river twice?
We can use that example.
Every time you step into the river that moment has it's own quality. It's connected to the past and future, but it has its own unique qualities that make it different from the past and the future. To live fully you have to recognize this. If it's all just a continuation to you you're missing the boat.
Another example used in Zen is a bird that is first in one tree than another. When the bird lands in the second tree the moments prior are all gone. The bird is in the other tree now. There is no visible trail left behind. It's a totally different moment. It's connected to the past and future, but it's totally unique. If you're talking to the head monk in a zendo and you tell him you saw that bird in the tree up there fly to it from another tree, he's going to hit you with a stick.
You can say that a fetus and a baby are the same thing until the cows come home, but they are not. The woman who has an abortion is not killing a baby.
BSB
P.S. Gun-nut and Dukakaphile should take advantage of their local abortion services. They have both been impregnated by the far right.
-
P.S. Gun-nut and Dukakaphile should take advantage of their local abortion services. They have both been impregnated by the far right.
And notice again how Anti-Constitutionalist nut, unable to refute facts & logic, is left to spew more zen-babble as his go to defense. Far left lunacy doesn't look so good on yas, B
-
Have I ever spoken to the same BsB twice?
A bird can learn the way to its food and the way back to its nest making its memory a valuable survival tool.
Zen masters never consider the possibility that theye are wrong?
There is more than just connection to the past and future ,although the present is uniquely the present , the present is the product of the past and the future is waiting on every choice and chance.
A tornado is the same collection of air molicules for a very short time, but it can leave a track across the ground for miles as it moves through time.
A human being is an ongoing event , in many respects diffrent from moment to moment and mobile from place to place. but there is continuity of being even for those few of us that do not preserve much memory.
If that Zen Master would smack me quite hard , might I not wear a welt over some time ? Isn't he smacking me in hope of punctuating my thinking and promoting my learning? This act is like other acts , it leaves its print in the sand.
There isn't a fundamental diffrence between a baby and a fetus, as the mind of the child moves it notices events and learns to learn.
-
P.S. Gun-nut and Dukakaphile should take advantage of their local abortion services. They have both been impregnated by the far right.
And notice again how Anti-Constitutionalist nut, unable to refute facts & logic, is left to spew more zen-babble as his go to defense. Far left lunacy doesn't look so good on yas, B
Don't dis Zen !
Yes it can be hard to follow, it can even be misused or taken in error.
But the real thing is hard to follow , not accidentally, but on the purpose of strengthening your mind.
You don't go to the gym looking for light weights do you?
Time at the gym makes all of the weights lighter.
-
Not becoming pregnant at all is less wear and tear than having an abortion, with no internal conflict or ambiguous morality .
So what?
It is none of your business whether she bears a child or not.
Look. My mind is made up on this. You are not saving a single fetus or baby by constantly harping on this.
I am 100% okay with every pregnant woman making up her own mind and dealing with any moral compunctions, period.
You are just wasting your time.
-
Xo, with yet another deflection effort. Yo, Xo, this is a debate forurm, where we debate ideas and concepts, morals, & laws, politics & religion, etc. At no time has the intention of this forum be to turn a poster from the dark side to the right side. If it were to happen, great, but to act like because "your mind is made up", so why bother even posting is pretty transparent. If that were the case, why would we even be here, since rarely do staked out positions change. Many a time, they actually harden, with others start resorting to name calling, insults, and fall backs to becoming the spelling nazi, yet again
-
"This act is like other acts , it leaves its print in the sand."
Ahh, good, lets use this example.
I once read a book on tracking by a guy whose grandfather was an American Indian, schooled in the old ways. When talking about tracks his grandfather had taught him that in order to judge the age of a set of tracks you have learn by going to a set of tracks everyday and watching the change that occurs. For everyday day that passes those tracks will take on a different appearance. You have to learn by watching as those tracks go through their transformation. Everyday they pick up their own different unique qualities. The woods won't come alive for you if you don't see in this way. It's very important and I've trained myself to do it benefiting greatly.
BSB
-
I have simply run out of things to say about a woman's right to choice. I am sick of gristly dead fetus pictures and discussions of chickens and eggs, ashes and wood. That is not a deflection, it is simply the truth.
-
"This act is like other acts , it leaves its print in the sand."
Ahh, good, lets use this example.
I once read a book on tracking by a guy whose grandfather was an American Indian, schooled in the old ways. When talking about tracks his grandfather had taught him that in order to judge the age of a set of tracks you have learn by going to a set of tracks everyday and watching the change that occurs. For everyday day that passes those tracks will take on a different appearance. You have to learn by watching as those tracks go through their transformation. Everyday they pick up their own different unique qualities. The woods won't come alive for you if you don't see in this way. It's very important and I've trained myself to do it benefiting greatly.
BSB
I've got that book! Very interesting that Apache scouts were practicly scientists .
Do you recall the scene where the elder leads the two boys into a particular spot and asks them to find the big tree?
They look around a good while before they figure it out, the big old tree is dead and rotted away , but the younger trees where it was are all still leaning away from its shade.
Nature is full of dynamic processes which happen on every conceivable timescale.
http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Browns-Science-Art-Tracking/dp/0425157725 (http://www.amazon.com/Tom-Browns-Science-Art-Tracking/dp/0425157725)
-
Not becoming pregnant at all is less wear and tear than having an abortion, with no internal conflict or ambiguous morality .
So what?
It is none of your business whether she bears a child or not.
Look. My mind is made up on this. You are not saving a single fetus or baby by constantly harping on this.
I am 100% okay with every pregnant woman making up her own mind and dealing with any moral compunctions, period.
You are just wasting your time.
I am more like wasting your time , but I am gratfull for your generosity in that respect.
I would like to do something that would reduce abortion to rarity, but I really can't .
What I can do is make sure that I am well founded and self examined.
You help me there, anything that I posit that really strikes you as stupid you are prone to challenge ,so I get my cobwebs cleared up....
So, ... thanks!
-
I have simply run out of things to say about a woman's right to choice. I am sick of gristly dead fetus pictures and discussions of chickens and eggs, ashes and wood. That is not a deflection, it is simply the truth.
It's a deflection, when you imply Plane, or anyone else, is wasting time with any posts, because YOUR mind has already been made up. It's never a waste of time to highlight truth, logic, and facts. Just because YOU don't agree with them, wish to ignore them, and jump up and down screaming how you won't change your mind, demonstrates a near level of immaturity. But at mnumum, it does help "the other side", when they see such tactics, knowing then their arguement is a winning one
Oh, by the way, the issue has never been about "a woman's right to chose". It's about abortion, plane and simple. A woman can choose anything they want as it relates to their body, and even their unborn child. Just not murder the child (abortion)
-
I say a woman has a perfect right to an abortion whenevee=r she wants, and goons like you should have NOTHING to say about it. It is none of your beeswax.
-
It's the unborn child's beeswax, and since he apparently gets no say, "goons like me" SHOULD have something to say about it
-
There is no unborn child, only a fetus, and a fetus gets no vote any more than a sperm or an egg does.
-
There is no unborn child, only a fetus, and a fetus gets no vote any more than a sperm or an egg does.
But why do you think this?
A fetus of eight months is indistinguishable from a post birth child the same age.
A fetus of nine months and several days can be beheaded and delivered in bits , even if it is perfectly healthy , no threat to the mother and the product of a loving union.
Must abortion remain free of all regulation and this baby bear a dehumanising name for no good reason?
-
There is no unborn child
Many courts across the country, apparently disagree with you. Pity Perhaps if you just called that unborn child .... a rock. Maybe a splinter, instead of a fetus. Something that is undeniably inanimate, incapable of having any feelings or ability to grow & mature
-
Fetus may not be the best euphenism, it is merely the latin word for baby.
I have seen the term "medical waste" used to refer to these persons .
Reminds me of Gobbels reference to Jews as "lice".
Anything to avoid the humanity.
-
Fetus may not be the best euphenism, it is merely the latin word for baby.
I have seen the term "medical waste" used to refer to these persons .
Reminds me of Gobbels reference to Jews as "lice".
Anything to avoid the humanity.
Precisely
-
Fetus is the Latin word for "fetus"
An infant (from the Latin word infans, meaning "unable to speak" or "speechless") is the very young offspring of a human or other mammal. When applied to humans, the term is usually considered synonymous with baby, but the latter is commonly applied to the young of any animal. When a human child learns to walk, the term toddler may be used instead.
The term infant is typically applied to young children between the ages of 1 month and 12 months; however, definitions may vary between birth and 3 years of age. A newborn is an infant who is only hours, days, or up to a few weeks old. In medical contexts, newborn or neonate (from Latin, neonatus, newborn) refers to an infant in the first 28 days after birth;[1] the term applies to premature infants, postmature infants, and full term infants. Before birth, the term fetus is used.
-
Anti-abortion, what an odd position to take.
BSB
-
Anti-abortion, what an odd position to take.
BSB
Yea, the idea of supporting the life of an innocent unborn child, who gets no say in his/her execution. is such a twisted position :o
-
See. How odd is sirs?
The hardcore anti-abortion people I know are a strange lot. Many of those who just oppose it are sincere people but the ones who go on and on about it, show videos of abortions, etc., are very strange. The most hardcore anti-abortion person I know also happens to be an abusive husband and farther. I'd be willing to bet that if you questioned a 1000 abusive parents the higher percentage would be pro-life rather than pro-choice.
BSB
-
See. How odd is sirs?
Yea, the notion of embracing an innocent human life....just so odd to you, isn't it. Might want to rework your question and start asking yourself why you're so opposed to it. But not surprising how you're trying to irrationally connect anti-abortion to abusive fathers & husband. Sad, but not surprising
Sirs
-
Silly sirs thinks that the unborn are "innocent" Alas, Christian doctrine says that every human is "born in sin". No newborn is free from original sin, which was caused by Adam and Eve following extremely poor culinary advice from a talking reptile.
I don't see where even a fetus would be "innocent human life".
A fetus would be "potentially a human life born in sin, as are all humans."
Of all the humans born since the Year One, only Adam, Eve and Jesus (and possibly the Virgin Mary, if we are to accept official Catholic doctrine) have any claim to having been born innocent. This is not my belief, by the way: it is the belief of the Holy Mother Church.
-
Silly sirs thinks that the unborn are "innocent"
So do many courts across this country, as they routinely prosecute the murder of 2 persons, in the killing of a pregnant woman. Bummers, those damn facts keep getting in yours and Bsb's way. tsk, tsk
-
The courts rule this way because the idiot ratbag rightwing legislators passed the law improperly defining a fetus as an actual human being. It hardly matters, since the penalty for killing one pregnant woman could not be more severe than killing an unpregnant woman.
Next the ratbag right may define a sperm as a human being, so they can charge any woman who gives a BJ and swallows with cannibalism for eating 3000 innocent babies.
-
You're all too erroneous opinonated claim is duly noted, debunked with the FACT that CA ( a state being run into Greece-like oblivion by DEMOCRATS, who control the legislature --> Cal. Penal Code ยง 187 (a) defines murder as the unlawful killing of a human being or a fetus with malice aforethought (http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/health/fetal-homicide-state-laws.aspx)
Yea, yea.....damn facts
-
Well that is interesting.
Google translate used to produce Feotus as the Latin for baby.
Now it is much more precice and agrees with XO completely.
I should have expected this to get fixed.
-
See. How odd is sirs?
The hardcore anti-abortion people I know are a strange lot. Many of those who just oppose it are sincere people but the ones who go on and on about it, show videos of abortions, etc., are very strange. The most hardcore anti-abortion person I know also happens to be an abusive husband and farther. I'd be willing to bet that if you questioned a 1000 abusive parents the higher percentage would be pro-life rather than pro-choice.
BSB
What is your point BsB?
I imagine that if Pimps were surveyed 99% would be pro abortion.
Does that make a point?
-
8)
-
If a sculptor creates a statue, he has an undeniable right to sell it or destroy it.
If someone makes a mess in their own home, they have an undeniable right to clean it up or just leave it for the vermin.
If a woman gets pregnant, she has an undeniable right to have a baby or have an abortion.
There is no more reason to let a herd of sirs or planes to decide for her that she must have it.
-
If a sculptor creates a statue, he has an undeniable right to sell it or destroy it.
Absolutely......its an inanimate, non-feeling, non-human object
If a woman gets pregnant, she has an undeniable right to have a baby or have an abortion.
Absolutely not, as it relates to killing the child.....its a living, breathing, feeling, growing human. Just because she currently has the right to kill that unborn child, doesn't make it right, or even remotely analogus to a sculpture
-
Sorry, jack, it is only human AFTER it is born.
Sperm are also living human beings according to the same definition. Shall we arrest those who swallow 36789 sperm fopr cannibalism?
Leave the law out of this: it is the right of a woman to bear or refuse to bear a child.
-
Sorry, jack, it is only human AFTER it is born.
game over
SIRSCongrats on exposing nutty liberal logic.
"only human after born"
means a baby could be aborted at 8 month and 25 days.
of course that is sheer lunacy
(https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/s480x480/560356_410315005694913_784482962_n.jpg)
-
That is not a fetus, it is a baby.
You morons cannot tell the difference.
-
Sorry, jack, it is only human AFTER it is born.
Not so, dennis, in courts across the land, they are indeed counted as a person, if a preganant woman is murdered. Even in that liberal legislative bastian of CA
Leave the law out of this.
LOL...yea, those damn facts....need to leave them out of this
-
A fetus is not a baby. Any fool can tell the difference.
A stupid legislature cannot turn a fetus into a baby.
If a fetus is counted as a baby in the case of a woman being murdered, then every time you call a fetus a baby, you need to back it up by murdering a woman.
Get serious, you have LOST this argument
-
A fetus is not a baby. Any fool can tell the difference.
Courts across the country apparently can. Best stick with trying to teach spanish
If a fetus is counted as a baby in the case of a woman being murdered, then every time you call a fetus a baby, you need to back it up by murdering a woman.
WHAT THE FRELL?? Ok, now you've gone over the deep end
Get serious, you have LOST this argument
I hope you didn't trip into the mirror, as you typed that
-
That is not a fetus, it is a baby.
You morons cannot tell the difference.
How do you tell the diffrence?
Are you cruel if you want to forbid a poor woman the right to kill her post para child?
-
I want the woman to decide for herself whether she reproduces or not. It should not be difficult to understand.
I shudder to think that clowns like sirs and Christians should have the power to do this. It is clearly NONE of their damned beeswax.
What is wrong with allowing people to have control of their own bodies?
-
What is wrong with allowing people to have control of their own bodies?
Nothing......until it kills another
-
Sirs, you creep, women will stop having abortions when the sun implodes, and not before.
BSB
-
Sirs is powerless to prevent abortions, as are they all.
All they can do is force women to have UNSAFE abortions and die.
-
Sirs, you creep, women will stop having abortions when the sun implodes, and not before.
BSB
We shall see now, won't we
But boy, what a great uncivil roll you've been on. Congrats