|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:47 pm
Eeowynn Mcphee I fail to see how the child goes from being non-alive, non-person, and non-deserving of life, into someone who is deserving of their live, and is perfectly human, within the span of nine months. That child is ALWAYS alive, and is simply growing, through the pregnancy. A fetus fits the definition of a human organism, in spades. As to your first point. The child starts out as a fertilized egg. Then ends up after 9 months of constant growth and development, an infant. Just as you fail to see how this changes. I fail to see how a ball of 8 cells all of which are unspecialised counts as a person. Simply because cells are alive doesn't make them count as people. But those eight cells are not generic. They will always result in a baby human specifically. Not a baby...panda (first animal to come to mind). A panda egg and panda sperm joining results in a baby panda every time. A human egg and human sperm joining results in a baby human every time.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:51 pm
Cyanna Eeowynn Mcphee I fail to see how the child goes from being non-alive, non-person, and non-deserving of life, into someone who is deserving of their live, and is perfectly human, within the span of nine months. That child is ALWAYS alive, and is simply growing, through the pregnancy. A fetus fits the definition of a human organism, in spades. As to your first point. The child starts out as a fertilized egg. Then ends up after 9 months of constant growth and development, an infant. Just as you fail to see how this changes. I fail to see how a ball of 8 cells all of which are unspecialised counts as a person. Simply because cells are alive doesn't make them count as people. But those eight cells are not generic. They will always result in a baby human specifically. Not a baby...panda (first animal to come to mind). A panda egg and panda sperm joining results in a baby panda every time. A human egg and human sperm joining results in a baby human every time. This is true, about the Panda (nice choice btw I love pandas) Aaanywho...whilst it is true that those 8 cells if left in the uterus may become an infant, the first cell devisions of a fertilised egg produce stem cells, which are capable of becoming any type of cell at all. If removed and grown in say...a petri dish...for example, one could make almost any type of tissue one chose, depending on the environment the cells were grown in. This is why I do not believe them to be "a baby" , merely a group of cells with the potential to become a baby.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 8:55 pm
Eeowynn lymelady Eeowynn lymelady black market abortion would be just like it was before...done in doctor's offices by the same people who do legal abortions now. Those abortionists didn't disappear after they were allowed to practice abortion, they just had government sanction. ...I have yet to hear of a clinical abortion being carried out by anyone with a coat hanger... I have yet to hear of illegal coat hanger abortions being stopped by the legalization of abortion. Perhaps the group of women who still perform abortions on themselves just doesn't know about the legalization of abortion? Coathanger abortions weren't as widely spread as you'd like to think, and the number of deaths from illegal abortions wasn't any higher before RvW than it was afterwards. In Ireland, Abortion is illegal. Every day many women get on a boat to England to have an abortion. Women will go to great lengths to have an abortion legally and clinically if that is an option. If it is no longer an option the women determined to terminate their pregnancy will still do so. Thus I believe the number of non clinical abortions will rise accordingly. The problem is that many black market abortions before they were made legal everywhere (And remember that before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in certain states here in the US) were -clinically done-, and all that happened with legalization is that those same doctors were allowed to perform abortions publically. The people who had coathanger abortions back then are the same people who do it now; People who can't afford a clinical abortion, and people who for some reason don't want it to be known that they had an abortion and believe that they would be found out if they went to a clinic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:07 pm
I.Am Eeowynn lymelady Eeowynn lymelady black market abortion would be just like it was before...done in doctor's offices by the same people who do legal abortions now. Those abortionists didn't disappear after they were allowed to practice abortion, they just had government sanction. ...I have yet to hear of a clinical abortion being carried out by anyone with a coat hanger... I have yet to hear of illegal coat hanger abortions being stopped by the legalization of abortion. Perhaps the group of women who still perform abortions on themselves just doesn't know about the legalization of abortion? Coathanger abortions weren't as widely spread as you'd like to think, and the number of deaths from illegal abortions wasn't any higher before RvW than it was afterwards. In Ireland, Abortion is illegal. Every day many women get on a boat to England to have an abortion. Women will go to great lengths to have an abortion legally and clinically if that is an option. If it is no longer an option the women determined to terminate their pregnancy will still do so. Thus I believe the number of non clinical abortions will rise accordingly. The problem is that many black market abortions before they were made legal everywhere (And remember that before Roe v. Wade, abortion was legal in certain states here in the US) were -clinically done-, and all that happened with legalization is that those same doctors were allowed to perform abortions publically. The people who had coathanger abortions back then are the same people who do it now; People who can't afford a clinical abortion, and people who for some reason don't want it to be known that they had an abortion and believe that they would be found out if they went to a clinic. Whilst that is true, the fact that abortion clinics are available in most places if needed will provide an alternative to having to go black market, and also offers you some legal rights if anything goes wrong and causes you damage or if they used malpractise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 9:21 pm
Eeowynn Whilst that is true, the fact that abortion clinics are available in most places if needed will provide an alternative to having to go black market, and also offers you some legal rights if anything goes wrong and causes you damage or if they used malpractise. That doesn't change the fact that it still happens. Tell the people who go black market, not me. I'm not getting an abortion either way. 3nodding Also, especially in the mid-western states, which have less population per square mile, many cities do not have abortion clinics, and so it would cost even more time and money to get to one. My hometown of Abilene, TX doesn't have one, and it's the largest city in a large area made up of 19 counties called the Big Country, or the Texas Midwest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jan 29, 2006 10:02 pm
Eeowynn Cyanna Eeowynn Mcphee I fail to see how the child goes from being non-alive, non-person, and non-deserving of life, into someone who is deserving of their live, and is perfectly human, within the span of nine months. That child is ALWAYS alive, and is simply growing, through the pregnancy. A fetus fits the definition of a human organism, in spades. As to your first point. The child starts out as a fertilized egg. Then ends up after 9 months of constant growth and development, an infant. Just as you fail to see how this changes. I fail to see how a ball of 8 cells all of which are unspecialised counts as a person. Simply because cells are alive doesn't make them count as people. But those eight cells are not generic. They will always result in a baby human specifically. Not a baby...panda (first animal to come to mind). A panda egg and panda sperm joining results in a baby panda every time. A human egg and human sperm joining results in a baby human every time. This is true, about the Panda (nice choice btw I love pandas) Aaanywho...whilst it is true that those 8 cells if left in the uterus may become an infant, the first cell devisions of a fertilised egg produce stem cells, which are capable of becoming any type of cell at all. If removed and grown in say...a petri dish...for example, one could make almost any type of tissue one chose, depending on the environment the cells were grown in. This is why I do not believe them to be "a baby" , merely a group of cells with the potential to become a baby. I don't think that's entirely right. Those eight cells have to potential to be any type of human cell they want...brain cells, muscle cells, nerve cells. They are wild cards that way. However they are still human cells. The DNA wouldn't allow it to be otherwise. The sperm and the egg provides 23 chromosomes to a 46 chromosome zygote, which then splits into cells with 23 chomosome pairs (one from each parent). That number will not change. To my knowledge, only humans have 23 chromosome pairs in their cells...or at least I have yet to see an article on google provide the name of another animal with that many. Either not enough animals have had their genes studied, or humans are the only one. If another animal with 46 chromosomes is discovered, then the DNA in the human zygote chromosomes would have to be severely altered to the other animal's genetic makeup.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:05 am
Cyanna Eeowynn Cyanna Eeowynn Mcphee I fail to see how the child goes from being non-alive, non-person, and non-deserving of life, into someone who is deserving of their live, and is perfectly human, within the span of nine months. That child is ALWAYS alive, and is simply growing, through the pregnancy. A fetus fits the definition of a human organism, in spades. As to your first point. The child starts out as a fertilized egg. Then ends up after 9 months of constant growth and development, an infant. Just as you fail to see how this changes. I fail to see how a ball of 8 cells all of which are unspecialised counts as a person. Simply because cells are alive doesn't make them count as people. But those eight cells are not generic. They will always result in a baby human specifically. Not a baby...panda (first animal to come to mind). A panda egg and panda sperm joining results in a baby panda every time. A human egg and human sperm joining results in a baby human every time. This is true, about the Panda (nice choice btw I love pandas) Aaanywho...whilst it is true that those 8 cells if left in the uterus may become an infant, the first cell devisions of a fertilised egg produce stem cells, which are capable of becoming any type of cell at all. If removed and grown in say...a petri dish...for example, one could make almost any type of tissue one chose, depending on the environment the cells were grown in. This is why I do not believe them to be "a baby" , merely a group of cells with the potential to become a baby. I don't think that's entirely right. Those eight cells have to potential to be any type of human cell they want...brain cells, muscle cells, nerve cells. They are wild cards that way. However they are still human cells. The DNA wouldn't allow it to be otherwise. The sperm and the egg provides 23 chromosomes to a 46 chromosome zygote, which then splits into cells with 23 chomosome pairs (one from each parent). That number will not change. To my knowledge, only humans have 23 chromosome pairs in their cells...or at least I have yet to see an article on google provide the name of another animal with that many. Either not enough animals have had their genes studied, or humans are the only one. If another animal with 46 chromosomes is discovered, then the DNA in the human zygote chromosomes would have to be severely altered to the other animal's genetic makeup. All correct. I loved doing genetics in Biology. That and taxonomy. Whilst everything you have said is correct, the difference in our opinion isn't on scientific function per say, but on what value we give to it. Whereas the potential for those ste cells to become a human baby, means to you (and i assume all pro-life people?) that it may be counted as such. My opinion, (and here I can only speak for myself , not the whole pro-choice side) is that until those cells become somthing other than stem cells, and form organised structure, I don't consider it a baby, I admittedly only look at what it is "now" rather than what it "could be". If that made any sense at all? I think I explained it a little fuzzily, sorry about that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:09 am
I.Am Eeowynn Whilst that is true, the fact that abortion clinics are available in most places if needed will provide an alternative to having to go black market, and also offers you some legal rights if anything goes wrong and causes you damage or if they used malpractise. That doesn't change the fact that it still happens. Tell the people who go black market, not me. I'm not getting an abortion either way. 3nodding Also, especially in the mid-western states, which have less population per square mile, many cities do not have abortion clinics, and so it would cost even more time and money to get to one. My hometown of Abilene, TX doesn't have one, and it's the largest city in a large area made up of 19 counties called the Big Country, or the Texas Midwest. I can't really say much on that i'm afraid, I'll just take your word for it, I can't say I've seen much of the states apart from Florida, New York, L.A and Vegas...tourist resorts are definatley not the best way to understand the united states systems xp But yeah... just somthing I was pondering, from what I've seen it seems that perhaps pro-lifers, consider the future potential of the fetus, and the present state of the mother, whereas pro-choicers consider the future state of the mother and only the present state of the fetus? Hmm , not trying to make any sort of point with that, just hmmm.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:18 pm
I.Am Eeowynn I have to say I disagree with the quote; ""May the Fetus You Save From Being Dismembered Thanks to People Like Me Who Advocate Unrestricted Abortion be Gay"." It seems to assume that pro-choice people *all* think abortion should be unrestricted, simply because they don't want it to become illegal and have many women and fetuses die horribly in black market abortion operating theatres..? Generally, however, ya'll do support abortion being restricted as little as possible; After all, ya'll are always saying that the fetus is not a human being, so ya'll should support unrestricted abortion up until the point that it becomes a human being. Also, just because people die from illegal things doesn't mean we should make them legal. And ya'll don't really seem to care that much about the "fetuses dying horribly" in white-market abortion clinics. There goes my argument for legalization of serial-killing... >.>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Jan 30, 2006 12:50 pm
Theallpowerfull I.Am Eeowynn I have to say I disagree with the quote; ""May the Fetus You Save From Being Dismembered Thanks to People Like Me Who Advocate Unrestricted Abortion be Gay"." It seems to assume that pro-choice people *all* think abortion should be unrestricted, simply because they don't want it to become illegal and have many women and fetuses die horribly in black market abortion operating theatres..? Generally, however, ya'll do support abortion being restricted as little as possible; After all, ya'll are always saying that the fetus is not a human being, so ya'll should support unrestricted abortion up until the point that it becomes a human being. Also, just because people die from illegal things doesn't mean we should make them legal. And ya'll don't really seem to care that much about the "fetuses dying horribly" in white-market abortion clinics. There goes my argument for legalization of serial-killing... >.> Yeah... After I realized that, I had to change my plan of "Global Domination," to not include "Eliminate all threats (aka, anyone who is not me)." Too bad Iran and Palestine and such haven't realized that. sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 7:45 am
I.Am Theallpowerfull I.Am Eeowynn I have to say I disagree with the quote; ""May the Fetus You Save From Being Dismembered Thanks to People Like Me Who Advocate Unrestricted Abortion be Gay"." It seems to assume that pro-choice people *all* think abortion should be unrestricted, simply because they don't want it to become illegal and have many women and fetuses die horribly in black market abortion operating theatres..? Generally, however, ya'll do support abortion being restricted as little as possible; After all, ya'll are always saying that the fetus is not a human being, so ya'll should support unrestricted abortion up until the point that it becomes a human being. Also, just because people die from illegal things doesn't mean we should make them legal. And ya'll don't really seem to care that much about the "fetuses dying horribly" in white-market abortion clinics. There goes my argument for legalization of serial-killing... >.> Yeah... After I realized that, I had to change my plan of "Global Domination," to not include "Eliminate all threats (aka, anyone who is not me)." Too bad Iran and Palestine and such haven't realized that. sweatdrop Too bad the U.S. hasn't realized that yet either. It's also too bad that Canada's going to soon forget because we've got a mini-Bush in power. Sorry, I'm Pro-Life but I hate Bush... sweatdrop
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Jan 31, 2006 12:24 pm
Theallpowerfull Too bad the U.S. hasn't realized that yet either. It's also too bad that Canada's going to soon forget because we've got a mini-Bush in power. Sorry, I'm Pro-Life but I hate Bush... sweatdrop Oh come on; We and he are not trying to destroy anyone who's non-US. rolleyes If that were the purpose, we would have destroyed France, and demanded Canada and Mexico's allegiance first. Well, not destroyed France. Just threaten them. Easiest take-over -ever.- What we are doing is stopping the people who do think that way.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 6:30 am
I.Am Theallpowerfull Too bad the U.S. hasn't realized that yet either. It's also too bad that Canada's going to soon forget because we've got a mini-Bush in power. Sorry, I'm Pro-Life but I hate Bush... sweatdrop Oh come on; We and he are not trying to destroy anyone who's non-US. rolleyes If that were the purpose, we would have destroyed France, and demanded Canada and Mexico's allegiance first. Well, not destroyed France. Just threaten them. Easiest take-over -ever.- What we are doing is stopping the people who do think that way. This is probably not the best place to discuss this but Bush, even if he's not doing it on purpose, is killing a lot of people. If he were trying to get rid of the real bad guys he wouldn't have attacked civilians and he would have attacked the right country in the first place. But besides that he still refuses to agree to the Kyoto Accord and in fact has gotten rid of most environmental laws so that big businesses don't have to spend as much on filters for their gigantic polluting chimneys and they can make more money. That part really pisses me off because the trade winds blow everything in Eastern United States up to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where I've been living my entire life. This means that my life expectancy has gone down since he's come into power, so he's already killing me... and I take that personally. Not to mention the fact that it's traditional to visit Canada after your first year or so as Presidant and he didn't until four freaking years later. By that time he wasn't welcome here. It's nice to see that he doesn't fake as many public forums as he used to though. You can always tell if they're real people with real questions if he doesn't know how to answer them. ^_^
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 01, 2006 12:30 pm
Theallpowerfull This is probably not the best place to discuss this but Bush, even if he's not doing it on purpose, is killing a lot of people. If he were trying to get rid of the real bad guys he wouldn't have attacked civilians and he would have attacked the right country in the first place. But besides that he still refuses to agree to the Kyoto Accord and in fact has gotten rid of most environmental laws so that big businesses don't have to spend as much on filters for their gigantic polluting chimneys and they can make more money. That part really pisses me off because the trade winds blow everything in Eastern United States up to Nova Scotia and Newfoundland where I've been living my entire life. This means that my life expectancy has gone down since he's come into power, so he's already killing me... and I take that personally. In his "State of the Union address" yesterday, he was calling for Americans to do their damnedest to find alternative forms of fuel, partially so that we don't have to rely on Arabic countries for our fuel. That would make it a lot easier not to pollute. And before you say, "He could just raise the standards," that would cost time and money that could go into looking for alternative fuels, bringing the need for any gasoline at all to an end sooner. And as far as removing environmental laws already in place, please realize that the President does not make laws. In fact, I'm fairly certain that he doesn't even get to vote on them in Congress. All he can do is veto, which is supposed to be reserved for extreme cases. Quote: Not to mention the fact that it's traditional to visit Canada after your first year or so as Presidant and he didn't until four freaking years later. By that time he wasn't welcome here. It's nice to see that he doesn't fake as many public forums as he used to though. You can always tell if they're real people with real questions if he doesn't know how to answer them. ^_^ That, I don't know. I didn't know about the tradition, and I didn't know about him not going. Maybe he just doesn't like the cold. sweatdrop And I realize he's not a very quick-thinking person. Personally, I like that. I think slow. I think that, when you consider things slowly, you come to a better decision. But because of it, it's harder to answer questions on-the-spot. The fact that he "fakes" some of his public forums shows that he realizes his weakness and prepares for it. But that's all a matter of opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 02, 2006 12:47 pm
That button offends me on so many levels mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
