|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:39 pm
Lorysa On another note, Hooray! You've got clothes on! ;D You know you liked the stripper pyro better.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:46 pm
Pyrotechnic Oracle Lorysa On another note, Hooray! You've got clothes on! ;D You know you liked the stripper pyro better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2005 7:51 pm
lymelady Pyrotechnic Oracle alot of people confuse Zygote and Fetus. The Zygote is the "lump of cells" the fetus is when those cells actualy resembles a human. I think the zygote stops being a Zy and starst being a fetus after 8 weeks of development. *points to terminology thread* Once cleavage takes place, a zygote becomes a blastocyst. 8 weeks starts fetal stage, but until then, it is referred to as an embryo. An embryo differs from a fetus in that it doesn't have all its organs in the works, yet. A fetus has all of its organs and systems forming, though they aren't fully developed. The circulatory system, although primitive, is functioning by the end of week 3. It needs to be, otherwise the embryo would never get the nutrients it needs. It has a beating heart as well within 22 days
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 6:11 am
Lorysa Pyrotechnic Oracle Lorysa On another note, Hooray! You've got clothes on! ;D You know you liked the stripper pyro better. Its a sin to even think it Lory, so you might as well just say it xd
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:00 am
Holy crap-- Okay, the power's been off since last night at around 11, so, yeah, I'm glad it's back on.
Can't live without Gaia.<3
Huge snowstorms suck.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:02 am
I wish we had snow storms stare
Here, Mcphee, take this bat and shoo the clouds toward north carolina.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:24 am
You know. I've come across a few pro-choicers who want to keep emotion out of the debates. I've done some thinking, and it may be flawed, but, hey, nothign really isn't. Well, this is what I came up with. Frequently things turn to whether or not some one should be having sex. CHoicers (many of them atleast) say there is nothign wrong with sex because its full of love, if done when the two people feel they are ready and trully love each other. (Yes...there are those facts that sex has some healthy aspects about it, but those are errelevent to the abortion debate)
Any ways, love is an emotion, is it not? So, there fore, it has no place in a dabte that is to be void of emotion. That leaves only one other aspect about sex...reproduction.
Yes, in a debate that is to be void of emotion, sex only has one other purpose.
Yeah...its a pretty weak argument, and one that woudl easly fall, but I just htought it worth pointing out to those wh have ever come across the pro-choicer who says that emotion should not be part of the debate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:28 am
Well, pyro, it's the same thing as saying 'fetus', in the manner a lot of the choicers use it, is just as emotional a term as 'baby'.
They think that the term 'fetus' takes the human qualities away from the child, and so that people can focus on the 'facts'.
The ones that planned parenthood puts out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:36 am
Yeah, see, it was a fairly weak argument.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:43 am
S'okay.
We've all had our weak moments.
All except Miranda.
Well... she has, I'm sure.
She just wouldn't admit it. XD <3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 9:56 am
If miranda (as long as Jabber does not rmind me refering to her as such) wern't such a "heathen fire bound pegan" ( xd ) I'd ask her to have my babies. WIth her mind and my bronz we coudl create a race of super humans
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:41 am
Pyrotechnic Oracle You know. I've come across a few pro-choicers who want to keep emotion out of the debates. I've done some thinking, and it may be flawed, but, hey, nothign really isn't. Well, this is what I came up with. Frequently things turn to whether or not some one should be having sex. CHoicers (many of them atleast) say there is nothign wrong with sex because its full of love, if done when the two people feel they are ready and trully love each other. (Yes...there are those facts that sex has some healthy aspects about it, but those are errelevent to the abortion debate) Any ways, love is an emotion, is it not? So, there fore, it has no place in a dabte that is to be void of emotion. That leaves only one other aspect about sex...reproduction. Yes, in a debate that is to be void of emotion, sex only has one other purpose. Yeah...its a pretty weak argument, and one that woudl easly fall, but I just htought it worth pointing out to those wh have ever come across the pro-choicer who says that emotion should not be part of the debate. I will flat out admit that I see nothing wrong with sex even if there is no emotion behind it. I see no problem with thinking, "hmm, I'm horny, you're hot, let's have sex." I'm not doing it for love (cuts out the emotion) nor am I doing for reproduction. I'm doing it for fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 11:52 am
Vivnox Pyrotechnic Oracle You know. I've come across a few pro-choicers who want to keep emotion out of the debates. I've done some thinking, and it may be flawed, but, hey, nothign really isn't. Well, this is what I came up with. Frequently things turn to whether or not some one should be having sex. CHoicers (many of them atleast) say there is nothign wrong with sex because its full of love, if done when the two people feel they are ready and trully love each other. (Yes...there are those facts that sex has some healthy aspects about it, but those are errelevent to the abortion debate) Any ways, love is an emotion, is it not? So, there fore, it has no place in a dabte that is to be void of emotion. That leaves only one other aspect about sex...reproduction. Yes, in a debate that is to be void of emotion, sex only has one other purpose. Yeah...its a pretty weak argument, and one that woudl easly fall, but I just htought it worth pointing out to those wh have ever come across the pro-choicer who says that emotion should not be part of the debate. I will flat out admit that I see nothing wrong with sex even if there is no emotion behind it. I see no problem with thinking, "hmm, I'm horny, you're hot, let's have sex." I'm not doing it for love (cuts out the emotion) nor am I doing for reproduction. I'm doing it for fun.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:01 pm
Lorysa Vivnox Pyrotechnic Oracle You know. I've come across a few pro-choicers who want to keep emotion out of the debates. I've done some thinking, and it may be flawed, but, hey, nothign really isn't. Well, this is what I came up with. Frequently things turn to whether or not some one should be having sex. CHoicers (many of them atleast) say there is nothign wrong with sex because its full of love, if done when the two people feel they are ready and trully love each other. (Yes...there are those facts that sex has some healthy aspects about it, but those are errelevent to the abortion debate) Any ways, love is an emotion, is it not? So, there fore, it has no place in a dabte that is to be void of emotion. That leaves only one other aspect about sex...reproduction. Yes, in a debate that is to be void of emotion, sex only has one other purpose. Yeah...its a pretty weak argument, and one that woudl easly fall, but I just htought it worth pointing out to those wh have ever come across the pro-choicer who says that emotion should not be part of the debate. I will flat out admit that I see nothing wrong with sex even if there is no emotion behind it. I see no problem with thinking, "hmm, I'm horny, you're hot, let's have sex." I'm not doing it for love (cuts out the emotion) nor am I doing for reproduction. I'm doing it for fun. I don't know why. A good deal of the people on the thread and in the guild WILL have sex just for the sake of having sex. I know I'm not the only one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:04 pm
Vivnox Pyrotechnic Oracle You know. I've come across a few pro-choicers who want to keep emotion out of the debates. I've done some thinking, and it may be flawed, but, hey, nothign really isn't. Well, this is what I came up with. Frequently things turn to whether or not some one should be having sex. CHoicers (many of them atleast) say there is nothign wrong with sex because its full of love, if done when the two people feel they are ready and trully love each other. (Yes...there are those facts that sex has some healthy aspects about it, but those are errelevent to the abortion debate) Any ways, love is an emotion, is it not? So, there fore, it has no place in a dabte that is to be void of emotion. That leaves only one other aspect about sex...reproduction. Yes, in a debate that is to be void of emotion, sex only has one other purpose. Yeah...its a pretty weak argument, and one that woudl easly fall, but I just htought it worth pointing out to those wh have ever come across the pro-choicer who says that emotion should not be part of the debate. I will flat out admit that I see nothing wrong with sex even if there is no emotion behind it. I see no problem with thinking, "hmm, I'm horny, you're hot, let's have sex." I'm not doing it for love (cuts out the emotion) nor am I doing for reproduction. I'm doing it for fun. "Fun" IE plesure is also an emotionle responce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
