Political Crossfire Forums

[Sailor Moon]

What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

[JackarooSundown]

Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

Good point, actually if the shooting became the 'proper way' we would see a lot less abortion.

There is no difference, murder is murder. What if a mom waited three years and then decides to 'abort' her kid who she does not want anymore by cutting them up into little pieces?

[LDA]

JackarooSundown wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

Good point, actually if the shooting became the 'proper way' we would see a lot less abortion.

There is no difference, murder is murder. What if a mom waited three years and then decides to 'abort' her kid who she does not want anymore by cutting them up into little pieces?

Yeah, what happened to a person's right to strike down any human he sees fit?

[steen]

JackarooSundown wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant? Good point, actually if the shooting became the 'proper way' we would see a lot less abortion. Why is it a good point? It seems lame and childish in its off-target irrelevance.

Quote: There is no difference, murder is murder. A claim of ignorance or falsehood, as abortion is not murder.

Quote: What if a mom waited three years and then decides to 'abort' her kid who she does not want anymore by cutting them up into little pieces? Why would that be an abortion? You seem to display some ignorance of even what an abortion is.

[Selfish_Meme]

Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?
The two are not the same and can't even be compared, unless you consider a single cell to be the same as a born baby. I certainly don't. If you are trying to say that having an abortion is murder then it is therefore equivalent to shooting a baby you are wrong, legally, scientifically and as far as I am concerened morally as well.

When living tissue is removed it is still alive until homeostasis stops. This does not mean it is 'a life'. If I have a mole removed it is still technically alive in just the same way, but I'm not going to let it drive me home.

[JackarooSundown]

Selfish_Meme wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?
The two are not the same and can't even be compared, unless you consider a single cell to be the same as a born baby. I certainly don't. If you are trying to say that having an abortion is murder then it is therefore equivalent to shooting a baby you are wrong, legally, scientifically and as far as I am concerened morally as well.

When living tissue is removed it is still alive until homeostasis stops. This does not mean it is 'a life'. If I have a mole removed it is still technically alive in just the same way, but I'm not going to let it drive me home.

Is your mole going to grow into an adult human someday?

[Selfish_Meme]

JackarooSundown wrote:
Is your mole going to grow into an adult human someday?
No, but only the possibility exists that the embryo/fetus would either. At the voluntary legal abortion limit it is as alive as the mole.

[Coral]

Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

An interesting question, particularly with your position that coat hangers are fine so long as no medical professional is involved with the procedure.

[Kt]

Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

[alclarkey]

Coral wrote: Sailor Moon wrote: What is preferable? Being killed with a knife while inside, or shot after you get outside?

I ask this, because there seems to be some kind of debate over methods of abortion.

So answer me this: Which is preferable? Why? Whats the difference, if the desired outcome is achieved?

And if you think that a fetus that comes out alive during an abortion procedure shouldnt be killed, yet support abortion, please answer this question also-

What changed for the fetus in that instant?

An interesting question, particularly with your position that coat hangers are fine so long as no medical professional is involved with the procedure.

Yawn. If abortion is banned, no one will be putting a gun to anyones head forcing them to kill their child with a coat hanger. If anyone does use the coat hanger method, and if they do manage cause themselves a serious infection from it, it would noones fault but their own. After all it was their action that caused it not mine. And furthermore I have no sympathy for a person who is able to stab a baby growing in their womb.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: Yawn. If abortion is banned, no one will be putting a gun to anyones head forcing them to kill their child with a coat hanger. There is no child.

Quote: If anyone does use the coat hanger method, and if they do manage cause themselves a serious infection from it, it would noones fault but their own. Your misgynistic display of compassion is duly notee.

Quote: After all it was their action that caused it not mine. And furthermore I have no sympathy for a person who is able to stab a baby growing in their womb. But then, there wouldn't be a baby.

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: Yawn. If abortion is banned, no one will be putting a gun to anyones head forcing them to kill their child with a coat hanger.
There is no child.

If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child.

steen wrote: Quote: If anyone does use the coat hanger method, and if they do manage cause themselves a serious infection from it, it would noones fault but their own. Your misgynistic display of compassion is duly notee.

Concern for the life of the unborn is actually hatred for women? The things people don't know about themselves!

steen wrote: Quote: After all it was their action that caused it not mine. And furthermore I have no sympathy for a person who is able to stab a baby growing in their womb. But then, there wouldn't be a baby.

Do you mean "but there isn't a baby?" If that then alclarkey wrote: If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child.
If not then what are you saying?

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: Yawn. If abortion is banned, no one will be putting a gun to anyones head forcing them to kill their child with a coat hanger. There is no child. If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child. No, it is an embryo or a fetus.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: If anyone does use the coat hanger method, and if they do manage cause themselves a serious infection from it, it would noones fault but their own. Your misgynistic display of compassion is duly notee. Concern for the life of the unborn is actually hatred for women? The things people don't know about themselves! Actually, here you did not show compassion for the unborn, but rather showed lack of compassion for the woman.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: After all it was their action that caused it not mine. And furthermore I have no sympathy for a person who is able to stab a baby growing in their womb. But then, there wouldn't be a baby. Do you mean "but there isn't a baby?" If that then alclarkey wrote: If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child. If not then what are you saying? There is no baby or child until birth. No amount of deceptive, pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole chan change that.

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: Yawn. If abortion is banned, no one will be putting a gun to anyones head forcing them to kill their child with a coat hanger. There is no child. If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child. No, it is an embryo or a fetus.

And? It is also a child.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: If anyone does use the coat hanger method, and if they do manage cause themselves a serious infection from it, it would noones fault but their own. Your misgynistic display of compassion is duly notee. Concern for the life of the unborn is actually hatred for women? The things people don't know about themselves! Actually, here you did not show compassion for the unborn, but rather showed lack of compassion for the woman.

In that you are correct, I have no compassion for anyone who can perform such an act as murdering their child with no emotion. It is not because of an inbred hatred for women though as you indicated with the word "mysogynistic".

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: After all it was their action that caused it not mine. And furthermore I have no sympathy for a person who is able to stab a baby growing in their womb. But then, there wouldn't be a baby. Do you mean "but there isn't a baby?" If that then alclarkey wrote: If you can find it to kill it with a coat hanger, it is a child. If not then what are you saying? There is no baby or child until birth. No amount of deceptive, pro-life revisionist linguistic hyperbole chan change that.

Not a baby until birth? So a baby excuse me fetus 1 minute before it comes out of the birth canal is not a baby deserving of life? And also how do you explain away the brainwaves and heartbeat? There has been scientific study showing young fetus' responding to stimuli such as music or the mothers voice, and yet it isn't a baby? No it is a baby it is a human being and no tree-hugging hippy liberal bulls**t can change that.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: And? It is also a child. When we talk abortion and developmental stages, then no it is not a child; a child is the stage from birth to adolescence.

To use "child" to describe the fetus is to deliberately trying to eliminate the distinction between born and unborn, trying to evoke the false impression that what applies to a child also applies to the fetus. That is dishonest, that is revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Quote: ...I have no compassion for anyone who can perform such an act as murdering their child with no emotion. It is a fetus, a collection of non-feeling, non-sentient tissue on par with a tumor.

Quote: It is not because of an inbred hatred for women though as you indicated with the word "mysogynistic". When you can place the mere existence of the life of tissue above the rights, safety and feelings of a born, sentient, sensate woman, then yes you are showing such a serious disregard for her as a person in her own right that you are misogynistic. When you insist that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will when such right certainly is sacrosanct for the rest of us, then yes you are demeaning her, removing her basic civil rights and making her a second-class or third-class citizen. That very much is misogyny, hypocritical misogyny at that

Quote: Not a baby until birth? So a baby excuse me fetus... Thank you. FINALLY. Now we can proceed in a discussion where we mean what we say and where the vocabulary is specific and non-ambiguous. When all that deliberate pro-life deception is removed, then it is possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion.

Quote: .. 1 minute before it comes out of the birth canal is not a baby deserving of life? It is not a baby. As for the deserving of life or not, that is independent of the deceptive and misleading vocabulary of pro-lifers.

Quote: And also how do you explain away the brainwaves and heartbeat? There has been scientific study showing young fetus' responding to stimuli such as music or the mothers voice, and yet it isn't a baby Do you REALLY want to discuss physiology, embryology and medical science with me? I must warn you that I get testy with pro-lifers who mindlessly repeat the lies they picked up at pro-life pro-lie sites. But lets start:

(1) "Brainwaves" are EEG tracings in a graphic format. These are representing the electrochemical interaction between the brain's cortex, the cerebellum, the limbic/hypocampal system and the brainstem. Such interaction is not possible until the signals coming up the brainstem from the body's sensory nerves can actually reach the cortex. And that final connection doesn't get set until the thalamocortical tract penetrates the cortical plate at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. So unless you are talking about 3rd trimester abortions, no there are no "brain waves."

(2) The heart is made up of muscle cells that beat automatically. If I remove your heart, it will lie on the table and beat every 1.5 second. If you remove a cell from the heart, it will pulsate every 1.5 second. So what is the significance? It is only an automatically contractile muscle.

(3) "Response to stimuli" before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy (see above) are reflexes, they are automatic. If you cut off my head and tap the tendon running down from the knee cap, it will still kick out. If you cut off my leg and tap it, it will kick a lot. If you are under full anesthesia in surgery and I start cutting, your body will reach with a flood of chemicals being released. These are called REFLEXES. They are automatic and do not even require a brain or even for you to be alive.

And yes, none of these things make it a "baby."

A "Baby" is "An infant; a newborn child." [courtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed, p. 164. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins (1990)]

Quote: No it is a baby it is a human being It is human as in the species designation. It does not have independent individual function to the point of qualifying as a "being," and it is not a "baby" as described above. Can you now drop the deceptive, emotionally unstable revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is fight over your use of deceptive terminology, we can certainly do that. If that is all you do with your posts, we can spend a couple hundred posts arguing the deliberate dishonesty of the choice of your terminology. It doesn't leave much room for discussing issues, though.

Quote: and no tree-hugging hippy liberal bulls**t can change that. Impressive tirade. Any other way you can dishonestly present your wishful thinking and subjective beliefs falsely as factual? Why is everything that pro-lifers do always coated in such emotionally driven deceptions and nonsense?

[Nicholas]

steen wrote: Why is everything that pro-lifers do always coated in such emotionally driven deceptions and nonsense?

Because that's their only concealing friend from the truth. Spewing irrationality in the face of scientifically proven examination. Not a way to win.

I am not going to discuss the terminology of activities between the fetus compared to the birth of an infant. But by all means, the embryo in connection with the fetus is systemically not a fully made production of ‘’life’’ and therefore has no right to live if a woman seeks abortion for whatever reason. Before birth, it cannot decide and function like the current existence whether it shows that there's slight activity or not. That's why abortion is acceptable. By definition, ‘’human life’’ is related to the animation of existence and involves the functionary aspects to everything and meets the necessary requirements of living, the fetus or the embryo does not meet those requirements and therefore NOT ''life''. It's the start of the production TO life, anything in between has no connection to be classified as a ''child'' or to be in the same rights as us. After birth does so.

In response to Sailor Moon's comment, being knifed inside is morally acceptable because of what I've mentioned above, shooting an infant outside after birth would be immoral because it's in the same rights as everybody else, therefore a fully produced human being ready to start its life.

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: And? It is also a child. When we talk abortion and developmental stages, then no it is not a child; a child is the stage from birth to adolescence.

To use "child" to describe the fetus is to deliberately trying to eliminate the distinction between born and unborn, trying to evoke the false impression that what applies to a child also applies to the fetus. That is dishonest, that is revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

No it is not. If I cut a 5 month old "fetus" from the mothers womb it looks very much like a human being, like a child. If I am lying then so are my eyes.


Quote: ...I have no compassion for anyone who can perform such an act as murdering their child with no emotion. It is a fetus, a collection of non-feeling, non-sentient tissue on par with a tumor.

And so are most born children for a short time after birth.

steen wrote: Quote: It is not because of an inbred hatred for women though as you indicated with the word "mysogynistic". When you can place the mere existence of the life of tissue above the rights, safety and feelings of a born, sentient, sensate woman, then yes you are showing such a serious disregard for her as a person in her own right that you are misogynistic. When you insist that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will when such right certainly is sacrosanct for the rest of us, then yes you are demeaning her, removing her basic civil rights and making her a second-class or third-class citizen. That very much is misogyny, hypocritical misogyny at that

Nobody forced her to have sex. If she really didn't want to have a baby she should have thought of that first. You can't just create life and then take it back.

steen wrote: Quote: Not a baby until birth? So a baby excuse me fetus... Thank you. FINALLY. Now we can proceed in a discussion where we mean what we say and where the vocabulary is specific and non-ambiguous. When all that deliberate pro-life deception is removed, then it is possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion.

I do mean what I say when I call a fetus a baby. What other motive for being pro-life could I have if I didn't actually think there was baby in there?

steen wrote: Quote: .. 1 minute before it comes out of the birth canal is not a baby deserving of life? It is not a baby. As for the deserving of life or not, that is independent of the deceptive and misleading vocabulary of pro-lifers.

I only say what I believe, its not deceptive or misleading. Like I said what other motive could I have if not to save children from death?

steen wrote: Quote: And also how do you explain away the brainwaves and heartbeat? There has been scientific study showing young fetus' responding to stimuli such as music or the mothers voice, and yet it isn't a baby Do you REALLY want to discuss physiology, embryology and medical science with me? I must warn you that I get testy with pro-lifers who mindlessly repeat the lies they picked up at pro-life pro-lie sites. But lets start:

(1) "Brainwaves" are EEG tracings in a graphic format. These are representing the electrochemical interaction between the brain's cortex, the cerebellum, the limbic/hypocampal system and the brainstem. Such interaction is not possible until the signals coming up the brainstem from the body's sensory nerves can actually reach the cortex. And that final connection doesn't get set until the thalamocortical tract penetrates the cortical plate at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. So unless you are talking about 3rd trimester abortions, no there are no "brain waves."

Even though you yourself admit they exist at or after 26 weeks you still support abortion at this point?

steen wrote: (2) The heart is made up of muscle cells that beat automatically. If I remove your heart, it will lie on the table and beat every 1.5 second. If you remove a cell from the heart, it will pulsate every 1.5 second. So what is the significance? It is only an automatically contractile muscle.

Yes a muscle that every human life must have to continue.

steen wrote: (3) "Response to stimuli" before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy (see above) are reflexes, they are automatic. If you cut off my head and tap the tendon running down from the knee cap, it will still kick out. If you cut off my leg and tap it, it will kick a lot. If you are under full anesthesia in surgery and I start cutting, your body will reach with a flood of chemicals being released. These are called REFLEXES. They are automatic and do not even require a brain or even for you to be alive.

If you'll notice from my post, I wasn't talking about reflexes I was talking about emotional stimuli. There has been scientific evidence of a child responding specifically to things like music, or the mothers voice. There's even evidence that baby's who heard music and were sung to and talked to by their mothers while they were growing in the womb, grew up to be well adjusted brilliant people.

steen wrote: And yes, none of these things make it a "baby."

And yes all of those things make it a baby.

steen wrote: A "Baby" is "An infant; a newborn child." [courtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed, p. 164. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins (1990)]

If I cut a fetus from a mothers womb at 8 months it looks very much like
"An infant; a newborn child." Even though it isn't born yet it is a person.

steen wrote: Quote: No it is a baby it is a human being It is human as in the species designation. It does not have independent individual function to the point of qualifying as a "being," and it is not a "baby" as described above. Can you now drop the deceptive, emotionally unstable revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is fight over your use of deceptive terminology, we can certainly do that. If that is all you do with your posts, we can spend a couple hundred posts arguing the deliberate dishonesty of the choice of your terminology. It doesn't leave much room for discussing issues, though.

The minute I admit whats inside a mothers womb is just a piece of tissue is the minute I lose all hope winning an argument about abortion. And why would I admit that, I don't believe it to be true. I believe with all honesty and openess that what a mother is carrying is indeed a child.

steen wrote: Quote: and no tree-hugging hippy liberal bulls**t can change that. Impressive tirade. Any other way you can dishonestly present your wishful thinking and subjective beliefs falsely as factual? Why is everything that pro-lifers do always coated in such emotionally driven deceptions and nonsense?

I deceive no-one. When you cut a fetus from a womb at anything past 26 weeks, it looks like a baby, like a person. And yes it is emotionally driven because of the belief that you murdering innocents. How could I talk about such an act without feeling something? I guess I should be more like you huh? Cold emotionless rationale. Just like Hitler to the Jews, or slave owners to their slaves.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: And? It is also a child. When we talk abortion and developmental stages, then no it is not a child; a child is the stage from birth to adolescence.

To use "child" to describe the fetus is to deliberately trying to eliminate the distinction between born and unborn, trying to evoke the false impression that what applies to a child also applies to the fetus. That is dishonest, that is revisionist linguistic hyperbole. No it is not. If I cut a 5 month old "fetus" from the mothers womb it looks very much like a human being, like a child. If I am lying then so are my eyes. The issue is not what it "looks like;" the issue is what it actually IS. Does a zebra look enough like a horse to be a horse? Does a bat look enough like a bird to be a bird? The "looks like" is irrelevant to what the reality actually is.

Quote: Quote: Quote: ...I have no compassion for anyone who can perform such an act as murdering their child with no emotion. It is a fetus, a collection of non-feeling, non-sentient tissue on par with a tumor. And so are most born children for a short time after birth. Ignorant nonsense. The neonate is sensate.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: It is not because of an inbred hatred for women though as you indicated with the word "mysogynistic". When you can place the mere existence of the life of tissue above the rights, safety and feelings of a born, sentient, sensate woman, then yes you are showing such a serious disregard for her as a person in her own right that you are misogynistic. When you insist that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will when such right certainly is sacrosanct for the rest of us, then yes you are demeaning her, removing her basic civil rights and making her a second-class or third-class citizen. That very much is misogyny, hypocritical misogyny at that
Nobody forced her to have sex. If she really didn't want to have a baby she should have thought of that first. You can't just create life and then take it back. Ah, so you are not pro-life, but rather are "pro-fault." The pregnancy is her punishment, the way to teach her a lesson for not living up to your moralistic standards of behavior.

Yes, that is very misogynistic. It is like saying that the smoker should not be allowed to get surgery because he did the smoking voluntarily and should have thought about it before smoking.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: Not a baby until birth? So a baby excuse me fetus... Thank you. FINALLY. Now we can proceed in a discussion where we mean what we say and where the vocabulary is specific and non-ambiguous. When all that deliberate pro-life deception is removed, then it is possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion. I do mean what I say when I call a fetus a baby. What other motive for being pro-life could I have if I didn't actually think there was baby in there? The misogynistic oppression of women as being at "fault" for their behaviors that you don't like. You just made that abundantly clear.

And no, "baby" remains a neonate, not a fetus, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. If you can't make your argument without resorting to such dishonesty and distortion, isn't it time for you to reassess your position? Certainly a position justified through dishonest claims may well be dishonest itself.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: .. 1 minute before it comes out of the birth canal is not a baby deserving of life? It is not a baby. As for the deserving of life or not, that is independent of the deceptive and misleading vocabulary of pro-lifers. I only say what I believe, its not deceptive or misleading. Like I said what other motive could I have if not to save children from death? "Children" is a developmental stage from birth to adolescence. Are you able to make ANY argument without resorting to dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Is that the entirety of what you have built your position on, such deceptive misrepresentation?

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: And also how do you explain away the brainwaves and heartbeat? There has been scientific study showing young fetus' responding to stimuli such as music or the mothers voice, and yet it isn't a baby Do you REALLY want to discuss physiology, embryology and medical science with me? I must warn you that I get testy with pro-lifers who mindlessly repeat the lies they picked up at pro-life pro-lie sites. But lets start:

(1) "Brainwaves" are EEG tracings in a graphic format. These are representing the electrochemical interaction between the brain's cortex, the cerebellum, the limbic/hypocampal system and the brainstem. Such interaction is not possible until the signals coming up the brainstem from the body's sensory nerves can actually reach the cortex. And that final connection doesn't get set until the thalamocortical tract penetrates the cortical plate at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. So unless you are talking about 3rd trimester abortions, no there are no "brain waves." Even though you yourself admit they exist at or after 26 weeks you still support abortion at this point? The brain waves exist at this point. that's at 3rd trimester. There are at best estimate about 800-1200 3rd trimester abortions each year, and these are done for medical emergencies. You bet I support such abortions; even the idea of letting toe woman suffer catastrophic medical trauma or death is unimaginable.

Abortion is a medical decision between the woman and her physician. ESPECIALLY in 3rd trimester. I support the not letting anybody else interfere for any reason whatsoever. THAT is what I support.

Quote: steen wrote: (2) The heart is made up of muscle cells that beat automatically. If I remove your heart, it will lie on the table and beat every 1.5 second. If you remove a cell from the heart, it will pulsate every 1.5 second. So what is the significance? It is only an automatically contractile muscle. Yes a muscle that every human life must have to continue. And so? You can't live without your lungs. You can't live without your pancreas. Etc. The heart is not uniquely important by itself, your body are full of organs and structures you can't live without. The heart actually can be mechanically replaced, so it is not nearly as important as some of the structures that can not be mechanically replaced, and for which the only hope of survival in the case of loss is in stemcell research.

Quote: steen wrote: (3) "Response to stimuli" before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy (see above) are reflexes, they are automatic. If you cut off my head and tap the tendon running down from the knee cap, it will still kick out. If you cut off my leg and tap it, it will kick a lot. If you are under full anesthesia in surgery and I start cutting, your body will reach with a flood of chemicals being released. These are called REFLEXES. They are automatic and do not even require a brain or even for you to be alive. If you'll notice from my post, I wasn't talking about reflexes I was talking about emotional stimuli. There has been scientific evidence of a child responding specifically to things like music, or the mothers voice. There's even evidence that baby's who heard music and were sung to and talked to by their mothers while they were growing in the womb, grew up to be well adjusted brilliant people. And how is that "emotional"? The brain's cortex certainly are not "hearing" anything until after the thalamocortical tract connects. It is like playing your radio without having the speakers plugged in. The final connection needs to be in place for the signal to reach the brain's cortex.

And that does not happen until the 26th week of pregnancy. Playing music before then certainly doesn''t affect the cortex. It may affect the thalamohypocampal connections or the thalamolimbic processes, but that doesn't affect consciousness or awareness in any way.

Quote: steen wrote: And yes, none of these things make it a "baby." And yes all of those things make it a baby. Really? All of those things make the fetus into an infant? These things makes the fetus somehow born before it is born? You are posting nonsense here.

Quote: steen wrote: A "Baby" is "An infant; a newborn child." [courtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed, p. 164. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins (1990)] If I cut a fetus from a mothers womb at 8 months it looks very much like
"An infant; a newborn child." Even though it isn't born yet it is a person. Friggin' irrelevant. What it looks like doesn't MAKE it born.

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: No it is a baby it is a human being It is human as in the species designation. It does not have independent individual function to the point of qualifying as a "being," and it is not a "baby" as described above. Can you now drop the deceptive, emotionally unstable revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

On the other hand, if all you want to do is fight over your use of deceptive terminology, we can certainly do that. If that is all you do with your posts, we can spend a couple hundred posts arguing the deliberate dishonesty of the choice of your terminology. It doesn't leave much room for discussing issues, though. The minute I admit whats inside a mothers womb is just a piece of tissue is the minute I lose all hope winning an argument about abortion. Ah, so the entirety of your argument rests on emotional appeals based on deceptive semantics? Good heavens, and you even ADMIT this? What is wrong with you?

Quote: And why would I admit that, I don't believe it to be true. I believe with all honesty and openess that what a mother is carrying is indeed a child. So you believe with all honesty and openess that what a mother is carrying is indeed a being at the developmental stage between birth and adolescence. Are you even aware of how ridiculous this sounds?

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: and no tree-hugging hippy liberal bulls**t can change that. Impressive tirade. Any other way you can dishonestly present your wishful thinking and subjective beliefs falsely as factual? Why is everything that pro-lifers do always coated in such emotionally driven deceptions and nonsense? I deceive no-one. You apply post-birth developmental stages to the fetus. THAT very much is deceptive.


Quote: When you cut a fetus from a womb at anything past 26 weeks, it looks like a baby, like a person. And it can look like it as much as you want it to. It still remains a developmental stage that has not yet reached that point. Your wishful thinking that somehow the look of a post-natal developmental stage will somehow MAKE it a post-natal developmental stage merely is nonsense.

But since your argument rests on what the embryo or fetus looks like, what is the gestational age at which this look is close enough that you object to abortions? certainly, the early embryo looks nothing like a child, and even halfway through the pregnancy, you likely cannot distinguish the human fetus from a chimp fetus. So when does it look enough like a "child" that you feel it looks like it is already born and thus qualifies as born?

Quote: And yes it is emotionally driven because of the belief that you murdering innocents. Again, for something to be murder, it would have to be an ILLEGAL killing. You seem to not give ANY thought whatsoever to the meaning of the words you are using. you should know that all this does is making you spew multiple false claims, making you look like a big liar. But if that is how you want to come across, just know that I will call you on your false claims. Emotional fervor with no facts behind ends up being dishonest rants with no bearing in reality, essentially delusions. That is how your argument now come across, as completely void of reality.

Quote: How could I talk about such an act without feeling something? You can feel anything you want. But if you can't make a point without rational thought, without facts, then you are merely ranting.

Quote: I guess I should be more like you huh? Well, if you could use facts instead of emotional hyperbole and revisionist linguistics, that would help. :)

Quote: Cold emotionless rationale. Nope. rather, use facts. Don't spew falsehoods.

Quote: Just like Hitler to the Jews, or slave owners to their slaves. This from you seeking to enslave women based on an emotional, irrational and delusional attachment to tissue?

Anyway, as for your Hitler reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: And? It is also a child. When we talk abortion and developmental stages, then no it is not a child; a child is the stage from birth to adolescence.

To use "child" to describe the fetus is to deliberately trying to eliminate the distinction between born and unborn, trying to evoke the false impression that what applies to a child also applies to the fetus. That is dishonest, that is revisionist linguistic hyperbole. No it is not. If I cut a 5 month old "fetus" from the mothers womb it looks very much like a human being, like a child. If I am lying then so are my eyes. The issue is not what it "looks like;" the issue is what it actually IS. Does a zebra look enough like a horse to be a horse? Does a bat look enough like a bird to be a bird? The "looks like" is irrelevant to what the reality actually is.

No it is not irrelevant. You are comparing apples to oranges. There is only one organism on this planet that looks like a human baby-- a human baby. After 26 weeks it has arms, legs, head, mouth nose, fingers toes, it may not have completed its development, but in reality has anyone on this planet? We are all at some stage of development. In fact some adults never actually attain the ability to think in the abstract, maybe we should just kill them too huh?

steen wrote: Quote: Quote: Quote: ...I have no compassion for anyone who can perform such an act as murdering their child with no emotion. It is a fetus, a collection of non-feeling, non-sentient tissue on par with a tumor. And so are most born children for a short time after birth. Ignorant nonsense. The neonate is sensate.
And the unborn fetus isn't?

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: It is not because of an inbred hatred for women though as you indicated with the word "mysogynistic". When you can place the mere existence of the life of tissue above the rights, safety and feelings of a born, sentient, sensate woman, then yes you are showing such a serious disregard for her as a person in her own right that you are misogynistic. When you insist that she can be forced to give of her bodily resources against her will when such right certainly is sacrosanct for the rest of us, then yes you are demeaning her, removing her basic civil rights and making her a second-class or third-class citizen. That very much is misogyny, hypocritical misogyny at that
Nobody forced her to have sex. If she really didn't want to have a baby she should have thought of that first. You can't just create life and then take it back. Ah, so you are not pro-life, but rather are "pro-fault." The pregnancy is her punishment, the way to teach her a lesson for not living up to your moralistic standards of behavior.

I've said this before on this forum. I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR SEX LIFE.
I could care less if you have orgies involving 25 people, dogs, elephants, your keyboard, etc. Do whatever the hell you want. But don't murder children in the process.

steen wrote: Yes, that is very misogynistic. It is like saying that the smoker should not be allowed to get surgery because he did the smoking voluntarily and should have thought about it before smoking.

Apples and oranges again. The smoker by treating his disease is harming no-one. Abortion harms the baby, and in alot of cases the mother.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: Not a baby until birth? So a baby excuse me fetus... Thank you. FINALLY. Now we can proceed in a discussion where we mean what we say and where the vocabulary is specific and non-ambiguous. When all that deliberate pro-life deception is removed, then it is possible to have a rational and meaningful discussion. I do mean what I say when I call a fetus a baby. What other motive for being pro-life could I have if I didn't actually think there was baby in there? The misogynistic oppression of women as being at "fault" for their behaviors that you don't like. You just made that abundantly clear.
See above.

steen wrote: And no, "baby" remains a neonate, not a fetus, your revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding. If you can't make your argument without resorting to such dishonesty and distortion, isn't it time for you to reassess your position? Certainly a position justified through dishonest claims may well be dishonest itself.

I have made no dishonest claims.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: .. 1 minute before it comes out of the birth canal is not a baby deserving of life? It is not a baby. As for the deserving of life or not, that is independent of the deceptive and misleading vocabulary of pro-lifers.

By a legalistic definition pulled from the dictionary. A baby 1 minute before it comes of the birth canal is indeed a baby whether or not you like it, and whether or not your technical definition says it is so.

steen wrote: I only say what I believe, its not deceptive or misleading. Like I said what other motive could I have if not to save children from death? "Children" is a developmental stage from birth to adolescence. Are you able to make ANY argument without resorting to dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole. Is that the entirety of what you have built your position on, such deceptive misrepresentation?

I have decieved no-one. It is really that hard for you to grasp? I DON'T LIKE CHILDREN BEING MURDERED. I hold no ill will toward women. I don't have some secret agenda, I don't want to force them to stay at home. Its not a political stunt.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: And also how do you explain away the brainwaves and heartbeat? There has been scientific study showing young fetus' responding to stimuli such as music or the mothers voice, and yet it isn't a baby Do you REALLY want to discuss physiology, embryology and medical science with me? I must warn you that I get testy with pro-lifers who mindlessly repeat the lies they picked up at pro-life pro-lie sites. But lets start:

(1) "Brainwaves" are EEG tracings in a graphic format. These are representing the electrochemical interaction between the brain's cortex, the cerebellum, the limbic/hypocampal system and the brainstem. Such interaction is not possible until the signals coming up the brainstem from the body's sensory nerves can actually reach the cortex. And that final connection doesn't get set until the thalamocortical tract penetrates the cortical plate at the end of the 26th week of pregnancy. So unless you are talking about 3rd trimester abortions, no there are no "brain waves." Even though you yourself admit they exist at or after 26 weeks you still support abortion at this point? The brain waves exist at this point. that's at 3rd trimester. There are at best estimate about 800-1200 3rd trimester abortions each year, and these are done for medical emergencies. You bet I support such abortions; even the idea of letting toe woman suffer catastrophic medical trauma or death is unimaginable.

Hey guess what? I support those abortions too. If the choice really is between being able to save the mother, or both dying I choose the former.

It's the abortions for convenience that I have a problem with.

steen wrote: Abortion is a medical decision between the woman and her physician. ESPECIALLY in 3rd trimester. I support the not letting anybody else interfere for any reason whatsoever. THAT is what I support.

Yes I agree, in the case of tubal pregnancies. Abortions for convenience? No.


steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: (2) The heart is made up of muscle cells that beat automatically. If I remove your heart, it will lie on the table and beat every 1.5 second. If you remove a cell from the heart, it will pulsate every 1.5 second. So what is the significance? It is only an automatically contractile muscle. Yes a muscle that every human life must have to continue. And so? You can't live without your lungs. You can't live without your pancreas. Etc. The heart is not uniquely important by itself, your body are full of organs and structures you can't live without. The heart actually can be mechanically replaced, so it is not nearly as important as some of the structures that can not be mechanically replaced, and for which the only hope of survival in the case of loss is in stemcell research.

And what exactly does this prove?

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: (3) "Response to stimuli" before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy (see above) are reflexes, they are automatic. If you cut off my head and tap the tendon running down from the knee cap, it will still kick out. If you cut off my leg and tap it, it will kick a lot. If you are under full anesthesia in surgery and I start cutting, your body will reach with a flood of chemicals being released. These are called REFLEXES. They are automatic and do not even require a brain or even for you to be alive. If you'll notice from my post, I wasn't talking about reflexes I was talking about emotional stimuli. There has been scientific evidence of a child responding specifically to things like music, or the mothers voice. There's even evidence that baby's who heard music and were sung to and talked to by their mothers while they were growing in the womb, grew up to be well adjusted brilliant people.
And how is that "emotional"? The brain's cortex certainly are not "hearing" anything until after the thalamocortical tract connects. It is like playing your radio without having the speakers plugged in. The final connection needs to be in place for the signal to reach the brain's cortex.

And that does not happen until the 26th week of pregnancy. Playing music before then certainly doesn''t affect the cortex. It may affect the thalamohypocampal connections or the thalamolimbic processes, but that doesn't affect consciousness or awareness in any way.

You know theres a scientific explaination for everything that happens in the human body from just concieved zygotes to full grown humans. We could apply that argument to adults too, and just drive down the street with a machine gun killing people we don't like.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: And yes, none of these things make it a "baby." And yes all of those things make it a baby. Really? All of those things make the fetus into an infant? These things makes the fetus somehow born before it is born? You are posting nonsense here.

Lets try a new concept on you. All of those things make a fetus a person.

Quote: per·son (pûrsn)
n.

1. A living human.
2. The composite of characteristics that make up an individual
personality; the self.
3. The living body of a human.
4. Physique and general appearance.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: A "Baby" is "An infant; a newborn child." [courtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed, p. 164. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins (1990)] If I cut a fetus from a mothers womb at 8 months it looks very much like
"An infant; a newborn child." Even though it isn't born yet it is a person. Friggin' irrelevant. What it looks like doesn't MAKE it born.

Of course it doesn't make it born. It does make it a person though.

steen wrote: Quote: No it is a baby it is a human being It is human as in the species designation. It does not have independent individual function to the point of qualifying as a "being," and it is not a "baby" as described above. Can you now drop the deceptive, emotionally unstable revisionist linguistic hyperbole.

Can we drop usage of that phrase? It doesn't lend any more credence to your arguments. None of my arguments are deceptive, I don't know where revisionist comes from, and if you consider the truth hyperbole, then you are the one being deceptive.


steen wrote: On the other hand, if all you want to do is fight over your use of deceptive terminology, we can certainly do that. If that is all you do with your posts, we can spend a couple hundred posts arguing the deliberate dishonesty of the choice of your terminology. It doesn't leave much room for discussing issues, though. Quote: The minute I admit whats inside a mothers womb is just a piece of tissue is the minute I lose all hope winning an argument about abortion. Ah, so the entirety of your argument rests on emotional appeals based on deceptive semantics? Good heavens, and you even ADMIT this? What is wrong with you?

It is you who are basing your arguments on semantics:

steen wrote: A "Baby" is "An infant; a newborn child." [courtesy of Stedman's Medical Dictionary, 25th ed, p. 164. Baltimore:Williams & Wilkins (1990)]


steen wrote: Quote: And why would I admit that, I don't believe it to be true. I believe with all honesty and openess that what a mother is carrying is indeed a child. So you believe with all honesty and openess that what a mother is carrying is indeed a being at the developmental stage between birth and adolescence. Are you even aware of how ridiculous this sounds?

No what I believe is in the mothers womb is a human being with a life, soul, and rights.

steen wrote: Quote: steen wrote: Quote: and no tree-hugging hippy liberal bulls**t can change that. Impressive tirade. Any other way you can dishonestly present your wishful thinking and subjective beliefs falsely as factual? Why is everything that pro-lifers do always coated in such emotionally driven deceptions and nonsense? I deceive no-one. You apply post-birth developmental stages to the fetus. THAT very much is deceptive.

I have done no such thing. I have called the thing inside a mothers womb what it is-- a human baby.

Quote: ba·by
n. pl. ba·bies

A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.

steen wrote: Quote: When you cut a fetus from a womb at anything past 26 weeks, it looks like a baby, like a person. And it can look like it as much as you want it to. It still remains a developmental stage that has not yet reached that point. Your wishful thinking that somehow the look of a post-natal developmental stage will somehow MAKE it a post-natal developmental stage merely is nonsense.

I don't what developmental stage it is at. It is a person.

steen wrote: But since your argument rests on what the embryo or fetus looks like, what is the gestational age at which this look is close enough that you object to abortions? certainly, the early embryo looks nothing like a child, and even halfway through the pregnancy, you likely cannot distinguish the human fetus from a chimp fetus. So when does it look enough like a "child" that you feel it looks like it is already born and thus qualifies as born?

Born or not it still qualifies as a human being. It is my personal irrational (maybe) belief that from conception on it is a person. But I'm not trying to prove that here. What my problem is with is abortions where the aborted fetus does in fact look like a human being. I don't understand how a person could look at something with arms, legs, fingers, toes, nose, mouth etc. and blithely terminate it. I don't understand.

steen wrote: Quote: And yes it is emotionally driven because of the belief that you murdering innocents. Again, for something to be murder, it would have to be an ILLEGAL killing.

Ok technicalities. We'll change the term "murder" to "taking the life of innocents"

steen wrote: You seem to not give ANY thought whatsoever to the meaning of the words you are using. you should know that all this does is making you spew multiple false claims, making you look like a big liar. But if that is how you want to come across, just know that I will call you on your false claims. Emotional fervor with no facts behind ends up being dishonest rants with no bearing in reality, essentially delusions. That is how your argument now come across, as completely void of reality.

You keep throwing these terms around such "Liar", "Deceiver". I have lied about nothing and you have failed to prove that I have. However I will turn this right back around on you. A person who accuses another person of the same negative action over and over again, is most likely engaging in that action themselves.


steen wrote: Quote: How could I talk about such an act without feeling something? You can feel anything you want. But if you can't make a point without rational thought, without facts, then you are merely ranting.

For thousands and thousands of years if you pointed at a pregnant woman's belly and said "theres a baby in there" nobody gave it a second thought. Only now in an age where abortion is legal and there are people who want it stay legal do you get into deep scientific and semantic discussions. Because that is what they require to support their cause. All I need is what has been known for thousands of years: There's a baby in there. And no scientific study has been able to prove otherwise.

steen wrote: Quote: I guess I should be more like you huh? Well, if you could use facts instead of emotional hyperbole and revisionist linguistics, that would help. :)

Once again you prove you have no emotion.

steen wrote: Quote: Cold emotionless rationale. Nope. rather, use facts. Don't spew falsehoods.

Nope you would rather twist facts. Don't spew falsehoods.

steen wrote: Quote: Just like Hitler to the Jews, or slave owners to their slaves. This from you seeking to enslave women based on an emotional, irrational and delusional attachment to tissue?

Once again we get down to it. Its the old "I don't see how he could possibly oppose abortion- he must hate women" attitude. FYI There are women who oppose abortion too, they must hate themselves right? If thats the case then things for them are really going downhill because theres a whole bunch of women who oppose abortion.

steen wrote: Anyway, as for your Hitler reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law

You can't pull Godwin on me. There is a real connection between the slaughter of 35 million+ children, and the slaughter of 6 million jews. Both are unjust and both require rational stating that subject being killed is not "technically" human to be justified. The same goes for the slavery reference. Black people were only 3/5 human. That is how keeping people in shackles was justified.

[Lost_In_Ambivelence]

Steed

I find it interesting that you take the point of view you do. I have a few questions/comments.

While it may be true that the human heart would beat on a table, I don't know, it is by no means just an automatic function. There is actually quite the complex nervous system that actually regulates your heart beat (otherwise it couldn't respond to changing conditions).

Your comment about an independly functioning human being. I was wondering if that meant that I can walk into a hospital and just terminate anyone who is on a ventilator or dialysis machine?

You are concerned with the baby basically sucking the resources out of the women. Perhaps you are in favor of parents killing any child who is refusing to support themselves. I gotta tell you, I was quite a drain on my parents when I was 5.

Nicholas, I don't know what a systemically fully made production of life is.