Political Crossfire Forums

[Ek0nomik]

joe christian wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: Since you're an extremist on this topic, can you please explain to me why you think life has begun at that point?
At whatever point a pregnancy is determined, there would be no need for an abortion if there was no embryonic or fetal life growing.

Abortion, by definition is the ending of a pregnancy by destruction of fetal life.

Abortionists are violent extremists. I'm just a passive observer.

Depending on when the abortion takes place, I don't see it as anything but fetal tissue.

[joe christian]

Ek0nomik wrote: joe christian wrote: Abortion, by definition is the ending of a pregnancy by destruction of fetal life.

Abortionists are violent extremists. I'm just a passive observer.

Depending on when the abortion takes place, I don't see it as anything but fetal tissue.

Fine, but the "fetal tissue" growing in my wife's womb is none of a bloody abortionist's business, and until he gets his filthy fingers out of my wife's vagina, he's no better than a nazi doctor, and should be legally executed as such.

[Ek0nomik]

joe christian wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: joe christian wrote: Abortion, by definition is the ending of a pregnancy by destruction of fetal life.

Abortionists are violent extremists. I'm just a passive observer.

Depending on when the abortion takes place, I don't see it as anything but fetal tissue.

Fine, but the "fetal tissue" growing in my wife's womb is none of a bloody abortionist's business, and until he gets his filthy fingers out of my wife's vagina, he's no better than a nazi doctor, and should be legally executed as such.

Not all people who perform abortions are male. An extremist view, for an extremist man.

[joe christian]

Ek0nomik wrote: joe christian wrote: Fine, but the "fetal tissue" growing in my wife's womb is none of a bloody abortionist's business, and until he gets his filthy fingers out of my wife's vagina, he's no better than a nazi doctor, and should be legally executed as such.

Not all people who perform abortions are male.
That's true. Some are fe-males. Both types are nazi baby butchers.

Quote: An extremist view, for an extremist man.

"Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry M. Goldwater

[LostSoul3412]

The only ones defending liberty are those who support the choice of abortion. Your paranoid ideals of "nazi baby butchers" that are going to "get their filthy fingers in your wife's vagina" are nothing but that. Paranoid ideals. Pro-choice advocates the option of abortion, not the mandating of it. No one is trying to make abortions mandatory. It is certainly your choice to not have one if you wish, but that gives you no right to say that another mother doesn't want one. And it certainly gives you no right to treat doctors who would fulfill their patient's requests as "nazi doctors" that "should be legally executed as such".

[LostSoul3412]

joe christian wrote: "Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue." - Barry M. Goldwater

"Extremism to punish others with labels or restrictions is the downfall of liberty, and governmental moderation of individual actions removes the individual from their own body." - Me

[Kumar]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The only ones defending liberty are those who support the choice of abortion. Your paranoid ideals of "nazi baby butchers" that are going to "get their filthy fingers in your wife's vagina" are nothing but that. Paranoid ideals. Pro-choice advocates the option of abortion, not the mandating of it. No one is trying to make abortions mandatory. It is certainly your choice to not have one if you wish, but that gives you no right to say that another mother doesn't want one. And it certainly gives you no right to treat doctors who would fulfill their patient's requests as "nazi doctors" that "should be legally executed as such".
It's not a matter of abortions being mandatory or not. The issue is that they are available to use even in cases not involving rape or other extreme circumstances. As for "liberty", it's fundamental condition is that an act is only permissible if it does no harm to others. That is not the case here. A genetically unique individual, who has the misfortune of lacking a developed neural system which some arbitrarily deem as being the initiation of life, is being harmed in the worst possible way.

By the way, the Hippocratic Oath states:
"Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."
so don't talk to me about noble doctors simply fulfilling their patients' wishes. That is something that these guys comprehend.

[joe christian]

LostSoul3412 wrote: The only ones defending liberty are those who support the choice of abortion.
That makes for good nazi propaganda considering the fact that those feminazi ideals don't seem to be too high on the list of reasons for the US Army being in Iraq and Afghanistan. You really are a lost soul, aren't you?

Quote: Your paranoid ideals of "nazi baby butchers" that are going to "get their filthy fingers in your wife's vagina" are nothing but that. Paranoid ideals.
So now you are an expert psychology professor on the ideals of paranoia. Interesting.

Quote: Pro-choice advocates the option of abortion, not the mandating of it.
Mandating the immoral legal right of atheistic abortionists to kill pre-natal Christian babies without the fully informed consent of their Christian Fathers and the rest of the Christian population is patriphobic as well as anti-Christian bigotry.

Quote: No one is trying to make abortions mandatory.
That's not the issue.

Quote: It is certainly your choice to not have one if you wish, but that gives you no right to say that another mother doesn't want one.
So now you want to deny my right to say that atheistic abortionists and secular feminists alone do not have the right to kill Christian babies without the fully informed consent of the whole Christian population. Very nazi.

Quote: And it certainly gives you no right to treat doctors who would fulfill their patient's requests as "nazi doctors" that "should be legally executed as such".
Since when have atheists been given the power to mandate that Christian Fathers lose their rights to free speech? Besides claiming the right of abortionists to execute Christian babies, you now deny free Christian speech on the Internet? Very, very nazi.

[joe christian]

Kumar wrote: By the way, the Hippocratic Oath states:
"Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."
so don't talk to me about noble doctors simply fulfilling their patients' wishes. That is something that these guys comprehend.
Atheistic and secular abortionists don't even take the Hippocratic Oath anymore. They have a new version. We call it the Hypocritic Democratic and Feminazi Oath.

[LostSoul3412]

Kumar wrote: It's not a matter of abortions being mandatory or not. The issue is that they are available to use even in cases not involving rape or other extreme circumstances. As for "liberty", it's fundamental condition is that an act is only permissible if it does no harm to others. That is not the case here. A genetically unique individual, who has the misfortune of lacking a developed neural system which some arbitrarily deem as being the initiation of life, is being harmed in the worst possible way.

By the way, the Hippocratic Oath states:
"Nor will I give a woman a pessary to procure abortion."
so don't talk to me about noble doctors simply fulfilling their patients' wishes. That is something that these guys comprehend.

But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.

Dictionary Definition: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. " (Dictionary)

An embryo does not have a metabolism, and it grows only as an extension of the mother. If the mother dies while the embryo is still within the womb, then the embryo will die as well. It is not an independent being, so it does not metabolize or grow as an independent. An embryo also cannot reproduce in its embryonic state. And further, an embryo does not adapt to its surroundings. The only expression that could be argued as "life" is an occasional kick inside the mother's womb, but that is not adaptation. That kick is merely the ability to move and express physically, not mentally or emotionally. The moon moves, yet the moon is not alive. An embryo may move, but it does not qualify as life.

[Kumar]

LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries?

Quote: Dictionary Definition: "The property or quality that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter, manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism. " (Dictionary)

An embryo does not have a metabolism, and it grows only as an extension of the mother. If the mother dies while the embryo is still within the womb, then the embryo will die as well. It is not an independent being, so it does not metabolize or grow as an independent.
I think you need to read studies such as this for some background. The necessity to acquire nutrients from the female host as a consequence of being unable to do so actively does not mean a lacking ability to metabolize the same nutrients.

Quote: An embryo also cannot reproduce in its embryonic state. And further, an embryo does not adapt to its surroundings. The only expression that could be argued as "life" is an occasional kick inside the mother's womb, but that is not adaptation. That kick is merely the ability to move and express physically, not mentally or emotionally. The moon moves, yet the moon is not alive. An embryo may move, but it does not qualify as life.
Um, a child cannot reproduce either prior to sexual maturity.

[Plodder]

Quote: Extremism to punish others with labels or restrictions ok then lets NAMBLA get its wish
lets let the murderurs run rampant.

[steen]

Kumar wrote: It's not a matter of abortions being mandatory or not. The issue is that they are available to use even in cases not involving rape or other extreme circumstances. That is a medical decision and none of your business.

Quote: As for "liberty", it's fundamental condition is that an act is only permissible if it does no harm to others. And the embryo, being mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue is not an "other."

Quote: That is not the case here. A genetically unique individual, who has the misfortune of lacking a developed neural system which some arbitrarily deem as being the initiation of life, is being harmed in the worst possible way. That is also true for a hydatidiform mole. Are you saying that hydatidiform moles are "others"?

[steen]

Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries? People in a coma do have these abilities. If they didn't, they would be in a Persistent Vegetative State, and these hulls of human tissue can indeed be used for organ donation.

[Plodder]

why not? Quote: And the embryo, being mindless, non-sensate, non-sentient tissue is not an "other."

[mattwa33193]

joe christian wrote: Ek0nomik wrote: joe christian wrote: Abortion, by definition is the ending of a pregnancy by destruction of fetal life.

Abortionists are violent extremists. I'm just a passive observer.

Depending on when the abortion takes place, I don't see it as anything but fetal tissue.

Fine, but the "fetal tissue" growing in my wife's womb is none of a bloody abortionist's business, and until he gets his filthy fingers out of my wife's vagina, he's no better than a nazi doctor, and should be legally executed as such.

Sounds like you need to have a talk with your wife.

[mattwa33193]

Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries?


A person who is temporarily impaired still has a functioning neurosystem - it just isn't functioning properly. A fetus doesn't have one at all during the period where abortion is currently legal.

[Gilbert1908]

mattwa33193 wrote: Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries?


A person who is temporarily impaired still has a functioning neurosystem - it just isn't functioning properly. A fetus doesn't have one at all during the period where abortion is currently legal.

The fetus indeed does have a neurosystem. But like a wiring scheme not all of the connections have been made.

So then it is as temporary as is the impaired person, in fact we know with certainty within a very specific timeframe when the fetus's neurosystem will gain full functionality. We DO NOT know with any certainty when or even if the impaired person will gain full functionality. Yet where there is certainty of full functionality we GUARENTEE the termination of a life, where return to full functionality is unknown and in many cases hopeless we provide all the extraordinary methods to protect the life.

You find NO irony in that?

[mattwa33193]

Gilbert1908 wrote: mattwa33193 wrote: Kumar wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote:
But without a neural system, can it really be considered life? If an embryo does not think, does not feel, then is that really life at all; or just mere existence? The ability to think, have emotions, and be an individual entity are all qualifications for life.
So are those in a coma not alive? If someone has the misfortune to be in an accident that temporarily impairs brain/neurological function, should their organs be harvested and used in transplant surgeries?


A person who is temporarily impaired still has a functioning neurosystem - it just isn't functioning properly. A fetus doesn't have one at all during the period where abortion is currently legal.

The fetus indeed does have a neurosystem. But like a wiring scheme not all of the connections have been made.

So then it is as temporary as is the impaired person, in fact we know with certainty within a very specific timeframe when the fetus's neurosystem will gain full functionality. We DO NOT know with any certainty when or even if the impaired person will gain full functionality. Yet where there is certainty of full functionality we GUARENTEE the termination of a life, where return to full functionality is unknown and in many cases hopeless we provide all the extraordinary methods to protect the life.

You find NO irony in that?

There is no neurosystem at conception. There is no neurosystem in an embryo. The neurosystem is not functional at all until about the 14th week. And I fully support not allowing abortions past the first trimester except for extreme circumstances.

There are no guarantees. Women miscarry all the time - stats are very unreliable because most go unreported.

[steen]

Gilbert1908 wrote: The fetus indeed does have a neurosystem. But like a wiring scheme not all of the connections have been made. And the final connection to the brain's cortex where processing and awareness happens, that conenction doesn't happen until the 26th week of pregnancy as you well know by now.