Political Crossfire Forums

[Prole]

Tingeling wrote: Steen wrote:
Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

This is silly. Wheter a source is "neutral" or not is rather arbitrary, and so is the definition it might present. You can't really hope to "prove" anything about wheter a fetus is a person or not in some sort of objective way- it all depends on what your criteria are.
I disagree. There are certain sources that have an agenda of their own which are biased, and certain which do not, and are not biased. That is not to say that biased sources always get their facts wrong, or that unbiased ones are infallible, but a truly authoritative, unbiased source is as reliable as you can get.

Any source that has the name "family" or affiliates itself with any religion is suspect, as is any source that affiliates itself with women's rights groups; these groups have an axe to grind, and any cynicism about the validity of their terminology. A medical dictionary, on the other hand, is a reliable and unbiased source for medical terms.

To be fair to Plodder and others who refer to a preborn human as a baby, that is a valid colloquialism. It is not, however, a valid medical term that I know of; by all means, if anyone can provide evidence from an unbiased source to the contrary, it would be much appreciated.

[LostSoul3412]

Prole wrote: Tingeling wrote: Steen wrote:
Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

This is silly. Wheter a source is "neutral" or not is rather arbitrary, and so is the definition it might present. You can't really hope to "prove" anything about wheter a fetus is a person or not in some sort of objective way- it all depends on what your criteria are.
I disagree. There are certain sources that have an agenda of their own which are biased, and certain which do not, and are not biased. That is not to say that biased sources always get their facts wrong, or that unbiased ones are infallible, but a truly authoritative, unbiased source is as reliable as you can get.

Any source that has the name "family" or affiliates itself with any religion is suspect, as is any source that affiliates itself with women's rights groups; these groups have an axe to grind, and any cynicism about the validity of their terminology. A medical dictionary, on the other hand, is a reliable and unbiased source for medical terms.

To be fair to Plodder and others who refer to a preborn human as a baby, that is a valid colloquialism. It is not, however, a valid medical term that I know of; by all means, if anyone can provide evidence from an unbiased source to the contrary, it would be much appreciated.

Even if such source could be provided, the opposition would turn it into a political paper instead of a medical one. The rejection would come from both sides on any research, a pro-life source denounced by pro-choicers, and vise versa, leaving us without a source for the truth.

Besides, truth is subjective, decide for yourself. :wink:

[Prole]

LostSoul3412 wrote: Prole wrote: Tingeling wrote: Steen wrote:
Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

This is silly. Wheter a source is "neutral" or not is rather arbitrary, and so is the definition it might present. You can't really hope to "prove" anything about wheter a fetus is a person or not in some sort of objective way- it all depends on what your criteria are.
I disagree. There are certain sources that have an agenda of their own which are biased, and certain which do not, and are not biased. That is not to say that biased sources always get their facts wrong, or that unbiased ones are infallible, but a truly authoritative, unbiased source is as reliable as you can get.

Any source that has the name "family" or affiliates itself with any religion is suspect, as is any source that affiliates itself with women's rights groups; these groups have an axe to grind, and any cynicism about the validity of their terminology. A medical dictionary, on the other hand, is a reliable and unbiased source for medical terms.

To be fair to Plodder and others who refer to a preborn human as a baby, that is a valid colloquialism. It is not, however, a valid medical term that I know of; by all means, if anyone can provide evidence from an unbiased source to the contrary, it would be much appreciated.

Even if such source could be provided, the opposition would turn it into a political paper instead of a medical one. The rejection would come from both sides on any research, a pro-life source denounced by pro-choicers, and vise versa, leaving us without a source for the truth.
That's my point about a medical dictionary; it isn't pro-choice or pro-life, it's just an account of accepted medical terms.

[alclarkey]

steen wrote: alclarkey wrote: steen wrote: Plodder wrote: Quote: IS it just me or do you have romantic fantasies about violence and possibly even ...abortions? of course he does. Another Plodder-lie. You should take out a patent. How very clever! However it is a worthless comment that means nothing. just like yours and plodders. Uhum. :roll:

Quote: steen wrote: Quote: and a baby is not a tumor. And the fetus and embryo are not babies. Evidence steen, evidence. You see most people have to back up their claims with evidence. I guess you feel you are immune from that little law don't you? Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

No?

Link.

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
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.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

[Plodder]

obvioulsy steen wants a defentiton from the NOW website or the Planned Parenthood. or as il like to call it planned extermination web page.

[Prole]

alclarkey wrote:
Link.

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
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.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
That is a colloquial definition, not a medical one. There is an important difference.

[alclarkey]

Prole wrote: alclarkey wrote:
Link.

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
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.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
That is a colloquial definition, not a medical one. There is an important difference.

So heres from a medical dictionary:

baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.

2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.

"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)

Origin: Dim. Of babe
So heres from a medical dictionary:

Heres what a "non-sensate", "non-sentient" being looks like:



Steen claims it's not a baby before birth, but that damn sure looks like a baby to me. I challenged him to pull a baby out of the womb 15 minutes before it was born to look at it's tiny legs, arms, feet, hands, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and then kill it. He had no response.
This it's not a baby until birth crap is pure nonsense. What makes it more a baby after birth? No real massive changes take place in its physical stucture when it is born, just it's surroundings. It is a baby even before birth.

[LostSoul3412]

alclarkey wrote: Steen claims it's not a baby before birth, but that damn sure looks like a baby to me.

Don't judge a book by its cover, just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it actually is.

alclarkey wrote: I challenged him to pull a baby out of the womb 15 minutes before it was born to look at it's tiny legs, arms, feet, hands, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and then kill it. He had no response.

Children are born days, sometimes weeks, early, the argument that it was removed 15 minutes early is not relevant to abortion, it pertains to children born early.

alclarkey wrote: This it's not a baby until birth crap is pure nonsense. What makes it more a baby after birth? No real massive changes take place in its physical stucture when it is born, just it's surroundings. It is a baby even before birth.

Physical make up does not define life. Life is a question of self-awareness and individual thought. After being born, the fetus becomes a child just as it becomes an individual being. The change takes place in becoming sentient life, not just an extension of the mother.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Steen claims it's not a baby before birth, but that damn sure looks like a baby to me.

Don't judge a book by its cover, just because something looks like something, doesn't mean it actually is.

Go ahead then. Pull that thing out of the womb and stick a needle full of poison in it. I guess it's easier if someone else does it right?

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: I challenged him to pull a baby out of the womb 15 minutes before it was born to look at it's tiny legs, arms, feet, hands, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and then kill it. He had no response.

Children are born days, sometimes weeks, early, the argument that it was removed 15 minutes early is not relevant to abortion, it pertains to children born early.

Steen postulated that "it's not a baby until birth", that picture is a picture of a child at 19 weeks, still abortable by most pro-abortionists standards.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: This it's not a baby until birth crap is pure nonsense. What makes it more a baby after birth? No real massive changes take place in its physical stucture when it is born, just it's surroundings. It is a baby even before birth.

Physical make up does not define life. Life is a question of self-awareness and individual thought. After being born, the fetus becomes a child just as it becomes an individual being. The change takes place in becoming sentient life, not just an extension of the mother.

And the self-awareness is significantly different than a month before? Is there some magical metamorphosis that normal human growth is massively accelerated at birth? Besides it is not an exstension of the mother. She cannot control the things it does with its limbs, she cannot control how it digests its food. In fact it is the baby that makes the decision to move him/herself out of the womb, not the mother's. The only thing that connects a baby to it's mother is the umbilical cord. Which is just a feed line. Would you say that a person with a feeding tube attached to them is an extension of the feeding machine?

[hendric]

My Reasons for Pro Life:
1) Abortion is being used as a form of birth control.
2) You can leave your child on the footsteps of a hospital to not have responsibility for the child.

[LostSoul3412]

((Before I start, congratulations on 1,000 posts alclarkey. Gotta give credit where credit's due. :clap:))

alclarkey wrote: Go ahead then. Pull that thing out of the womb and stick a needle full of poison in it. I guess it's easier if someone else does it right?

My personal feelings are not the issue. If it was my children, then I would be strongly pro-life, but the issue I have is when abortion tries to become a law by imposing one group's morals upon the other. On top of that, it is also my choice to put my faith in the doctor performing the operation instead of doing it myself. Just as it is my choice to abort, it is also my choice to let doctors do their job.

alclarkey wrote: And the self-awareness is significantly different than a month before? Is there some magical metamorphosis that normal human growth is massively accelerated at birth? Besides it is not an exstension of the mother. She cannot control the things it does with its limbs, she cannot control how it digests its food. In fact it is the baby that makes the decision to move him/herself out of the womb, not the mother's. The only thing that connects a baby to it's mother is the umbilical cord. Which is just a feed line. Would you say that a person with a feeding tube attached to them is an extension of the feeding machine?

Yes, self-awareness is a requirement for sentient life. Within the womb, embryos do not think, and most movements are actually reflexes and not intentional actions. So while the mother cannot control the embryo's limbs, neither can the embryo itself. Also, the embryo is connected though the "feed line" that is its only means of survival. Without the nourishment from the mother, the embryo would not exist, and would fail to transform from potential life to actual life. The difference between someone on a feeding tube and an embryo is the issue of sentient thought. An individual on a feeding tube still thinks, an embryo attached though an umbilical cord does not.

[alclarkey]

LostSoul3412 wrote: ((Before I start, congratulations on 1,000 posts alclarkey. Gotta give credit where credit's due. :clap:))

'Preciate it. :cool:

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: Go ahead then. Pull that thing out of the womb and stick a needle full of poison in it. I guess it's easier if someone else does it right?

My personal feelings are not the issue. If it was my children, then I would be strongly pro-life, but the issue I have is when abortion tries to become a law by imposing one group's morals upon the other. On top of that, it is also my choice to put my faith in the doctor performing the operation instead of doing it myself. Just as it is my choice to abort, it is also my choice to let doctors do their job.

We've been over this before, your an anarchist so there really isn't any point debating this particular line with you.

LostSoul3412 wrote: alclarkey wrote: And the self-awareness is significantly different than a month before? Is there some magical metamorphosis that normal human growth is massively accelerated at birth? Besides it is not an exstension of the mother. She cannot control the things it does with its limbs, she cannot control how it digests its food. In fact it is the baby that makes the decision to move him/herself out of the womb, not the mother's. The only thing that connects a baby to it's mother is the umbilical cord. Which is just a feed line. Would you say that a person with a feeding tube attached to them is an extension of the feeding machine?

Yes, self-awareness is a requirement for sentient life.

Notice I didn't ask if it was a requisite for sentience.
I wrote: And the self-awareness is significantly different than a month before?

LostSoul3412 wrote: Within the womb, embryos do not think, and most movements are actually reflexes and not intentional actions.
And you can prove this?

LostSoul3412 wrote: So while the mother cannot control the embryo's limbs, neither can the embryo itself.

Embryos and Fetus' do move around of their own accord, and it is not a reflexive action.


Also, the embryo is connected though the "feed line" that is its only means of survival. Without the nourishment from the mother, the embryo would not exist, and would fail to transform from potential life to actual life. The difference between someone on a feeding tube and an embryo is the issue of sentient thought. An individual on a feeding tube still thinks, an embryo attached though an umbilical cord does not.[/quote]

And like I said before, you need to have proof of that, without it you are killing something that might actually be a sentient being.

And on another note, what happens on day six after a conception? I'll tell you, the zygote attaches itself to the uterine wall. Let me repeat that it attaches itself. It takes an action in it's own interest for survival. It is a being that cares about living. It has sentience. It is a person. To terminate it would be murder.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: and a baby is not a tumor. Quote: And the fetus and embryo are not babies. Evidence steen, evidence. You see most people have to back up their claims with evidence. I guess you feel you are immune from that little law don't you? Quote: Please provide a referenced, neutral source that defines "embryo" or 'fetus" and has "baby" in the definition.

No? Link.

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb) Well, that wasn't the definition of fetus or embryo. Here, from the same site is the definition for fetus:

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Not ONE word there is "baby."

So lets look at the next source:

The unborn young of a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn young from the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.
(Happens to be Stedman's definition)

Next one:
an unborn or unhatched vertebrate especially after attaining the basic structural plan of its kind; specifically : a developing human from usually three months after conception to birth
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Another medical dictionary. M-W's version , which s*cks, but there it is anyway.

an unborn or unhatched vertebrate in the later stages of development showing the main recognizable features of the mature animal
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

And STILL not one saying "baby" anywhere in the definition of "fetus." But hey, there is one left, on cancernet. maybe you get lucky, do you think?:

<biology, embryology, obstetrics> A developing unborn offspring of an animal that gives birth to its young (as opposed to laying eggs).

From approximately three months after conception the offspring take on a recognisable form (all parts in place, etc.). In human development, the period after the seventh or eighth week of pregnancy is the foetal period.
On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

Bummer for you. STILL not one source mentioning "baby" as part of the definition for "Fetus." Seems like you are out of luck with that one.

But maybe you have more luck with "embryo" do you think?

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.

The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
Botany. The minute, rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium.
A rudimentary or beginning stage: “To its founding fathers, the European [Economic] Community was the embryo of the United States of Europe” (Economist).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Medieval Latin embry, from Greek embruon : en-, in; see en-2 + bruein, to be full to bursting.]
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

Hmm, no this doesn't look promising either, at least not so far. Lets keep looking

An organism in its early stages of development, especially before it has reached a distinctively recognizable form.
An organism at any time before full development, birth, or hatching.
The fertilized egg of a vertebrate animal following cleavage.
In humans, the prefetal product of conception from implantation through the eighth week of development.
The American Heritage® Stedman's Medical Dictionary
Copyright © 2002, 2001, 1995 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company.

That was Stedman's medical Dictionary again, the standard for medical terminology among physicians. Still no "baby" found in the definition.

1 archaic : a vertebrate at any stage of development prior to birth or hatching
2 : an animal in the early stages of growth and differentiation that are characterized by cleavage, the laying down of fundamental tissues, and the formation of primitive organs and organ systems; especially : the developing human individual from the time of implantation to the end of the eighth week after conceptionMerriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

n 1: (botany) a minute rudimentary plant contained within a seed or an archegonium 2: an animal organism in the early stages of growth and differentiation that in higher forms merge into fetal stages but in lower forms terminate in commencement of larval life
WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

<embryology, gynaecology> In animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.

In man, the developing organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week.
On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

Nope. Not one of the definitions for "embryo" included the word "Baby." Hmm, seems like you are wrong. makes me wonder.... Nah, you wouldn't be THAT dishonest, would you? Lets go back and look at your original source for "baby," just to confirm the united use of the term in all the dictionary sources of your link....

The first definition in its fullest is as such:

A very young child; an infant.
An unborn child; a fetus.
The youngest member of a family or group.
A very young animal.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.

adj. bab·i·er, bab·i·est
Of or having to do with a baby.
Infantile or childish.
Small in comparison with others of the same kind: baby vegetables.

tr.v. ba·bied, ba·by·ing, ba·bies
To pamper like a baby; coddle.
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

1 : an extremely young child; especially : INFANT —see BLUE BABY
2 : an extremely young animal —baby adjective —ba·by·hood /-bE-"hud/ noun —ba·by·ish /-ish/ adjective
Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2002 Merriam-Webster, Inc.

Hmm, this was a medical dictionary and it disagrees with you. But as I stated earlier, the M-W medical dictionary s*cks, so lets look further.

n 1: a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk; "isn't she too young to have a baby?" [syn: babe, infant] 2: sometimes used as a term of address for attractive young women [syn: sister] 3: a very young mammal; "baby rabbits" 4: the youngest member of a group (not necessarily young); "the baby of the family"; "the baby of the Supreme Court" 5: an immature childish person; "he remained a child in practical matters as long as he lived"; "stop being a baby!" [syn: child] 6: a project of personal concern to someone; "this project is his baby" v : treat with excessive indulgence; "grandparents often pamper the children"; "Let's not mollycoddle our students!"WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

This one directly disagrees with you, specifying that the "baby" starts at birth.

. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.

2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.

"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)
On-line Medical Dictionary, © 1997-98 Academic Medical Publishing & CancerWEB

And still nothing. Steadman's was missing, as its online source doesn't link to this term, but I already provided the paper-version's definition that you can double-check for yourself in any library or good book store.

So it seems that your absolutist insistence on the misuse of the term is on rather shaky ground. Hmm, no surprise there.

Oh, what was that?

Oh, I am sorry, Did you think you could get away with being dishonest again without being called on it? How silly of you.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: obvioulsy steen wants a defentiton from the NOW website or the Planned Parenthood. MUST you always lie? I merely wanted an authoritative source of the definition of "embryo" or "fetus" that showed that "baby" was part of the definition.

But you HAD to lie about that, didn't you? No surprise there. It sure strengthens the stereotype of prolifers as habitual liars.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: Prole wrote: alclarkey wrote:
Link.

ba·by ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bb)
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.
An adult or young person who behaves in an infantile way.
Slang. A girl or young woman.
Informal. Sweetheart; dear. Used as a term of endearment.
Slang. An object of personal concern or interest: Keeping the boat in good repair is your baby.
That is a colloquial definition, not a medical one. There is an important difference.

So heres from a medical dictionary:

baby
1. An infant or young child of either sex; a babe.

2. A small image of an infant; a doll. Babies in the eyes, the minute reflection which one sees of one's self in the eyes of another.

"She clung about his neck, gave him ten kisses, Toyed with his locks, looked babies in his eyes." (Heywood)

Origin: Dim. Of babe
So heres from a medical dictionary: Yup. Not ONE mention of either "embryo" or "fetus." The moment the pro-life dishonest revisionist linguistic hyperbole and the emotional histrionics is weeded out, all these silly and false claims of the embryo as a "baby" disappears immediately. very telling of how much the pro-life movement relies on the emotional appeal of outright deception in order to make its arguments.

[/quote]Heres what a "non-sensate", "non-sentient" being looks like:[/quote]Well, per the URL description, this is at 5 mth gestational age. So it likely is non-sensate and non-sentient, but at the extreme edge of becoming sentient.

Now, most abortions occur before 8 weeks. So this is what it really looks like, per Netter's Anatomical Atlas:
http://www.netterimages.com/images/vtn/000/000/001/1012-150x150.jpg:

Quote: Steen claims it's not a baby before birth, but that damn sure looks like a baby to me. And as we have amply seen by now, you don't know WHAT a baby is. What it looks like to you is only a reflection of your extreme ignorance.

Quote: I challenged him to pull a baby out of the womb 15 minutes before it was born to look at it's tiny legs, arms, feet, hands, fingers, toes, eyes, ears, nose, and mouth, and then kill it. He had no response. Why should I? What meaningful point is there in such a silly argument?

Quote: This it's not a baby until birth crap is pure nonsense. Nope, it is scientific fact. That your emotional histrionics demands that the factual term "baby" be applied outside of where it is scientifically defined, just so it fills some emotional need for you to be deceptive, well that frankly is not my problem.

Quote: What makes it more a baby after birth? Well, it reaches the developmental stage that actually IS a "baby."
That you are so illiterate that you don't know this, that also is not my problem.

Quote: No real massive changes take place in its physical stucture when it is born, just it's surroundings. A fascinating claim of ignorance. Could you please tell me where you find the atrial "Foramen Ovale" after birth? And while you are at it, where is your "Ductus Arteriosus" or even your Ductus Venosus? What happened to them?

BTW, before you expose yourself as even MORE ignorant, here is a link you might want to read up on:
http://mcb.berkeley.edu/courses/mcb135e/fetal.html

And that is ONLY the vasculature and lungs.

Quote: It is a baby even before birth. Nope, no more than my dog is a "baby."

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: Steen postulated that "it's not a baby until birth", that picture is a picture of a child at 19 weeks, still abortable by most pro-abortionists standards. it is a picture of a fetus, not of a baby, your emotional histrionics none withstanding.

Quote: Besides it is not an exstension of the mother. She cannot control the things it does with its limbs, she cannot control how it digests its food. Nor can she control how her liver or her kidney works and what they do. So that is utterly irrelevant.

Quote: In fact it is the baby that makes the decision to move him/herself out of the womb, not the mother's. Another lie. Please show the evidence of any kind of "decision" from the fetus in this process. No? So it was just MORE LIES. No surprise. You sure lie A LOT.

Quote: The only thing that connects a baby to it's mother is the umbilical cord. Like several bodily organs, yes. The only thing that connects your spleen to you are arteries and veins. Golly gee, that must mean that your spleen is a baby, then?

Quote: Which is just a feed line. Really? NOTHING else flows through the umbilical cord? Seems like you are again doing your best to convince us of how truly ignorant you are of the subject you are trying to make lying claims about.

[steen]

alclarkey wrote: LostSoul3412 wrote: Within the womb, embryos do not think, and most movements are actually reflexes and not intentional actions. And you can prove this? I and others have certainly several times provided evidence that there is no thought or awareness whatsoever at any time before the 26th week of pregnancy.

Quote: LostSoul3412 wrote: So while the mother cannot control the embryo's limbs, neither can the embryo itself.
Embryos and Fetus' do move around of their own accord, and it is not a reflexive action. before the 26th week of pregnancy, it is ONLY reflexes.

Quote: And like I said before, you need to have proof of that, without it you are killing something that might actually be a sentient being. There is not even a possibility of sentience before the end of the 26th week of pregnancy, let alone actual sentience. This is solidly proven.

Quote: And on another note, what happens on day six after a conception? I'll tell you, the zygote attaches itself to the uterine wall. Actually, at that time there is no zygote. The implantation happens around the time of the transition from blastocyst to embryo. And it is very much an automatic process with no plan or deliberate action involved.

Quote: Let me repeat that it attaches itself. It takes an action in it's own interest for survival. Your claim is ignorant, anthropomorphizing nonsense.

Quote: It is a being that cares about living. lying nonsense.

Quote: It has sentience. you are lying.

Quote: It is a person. "Person" remains a legal term, and it clearly is defined as not applying before birth, your deceptive, revisionist linguistic hyperbole none withstanding.

Quote: To terminate it would be murder. Another lie.

Gosh, you STILL lie a lot. Do you intend to ever stop lying?

[Plodder]

Quote: Life is a question of self-awareness and individual thought. ok then kill the bacteria on mars (if there is any) it sure aint life right?


your staement is unfound and scientifically false.



and regardless of what you belive, murder is alwasy the killing of innocent human life. an embryo fatus baby are all of the above. Abortion is murder becuse it terminates the innocent life of the child at the youngest stages of intial development.

[steen]

Plodder wrote: and regardless of what you belive, murder is alwasy the killing of innocent human life. Your claim is false. The main requirement for a killing to be "murder" is that it is an illegal act. As long as abortion is legal, it by definition can not be murder, pro-life liars like you none withstanding.

Quote: Abortion is murder becuse it terminates the innocent life of the child at the youngest stages of intial development. You are lying.

[Plodder]

Quote: The main requirement for a killing to be "murder" is that it is an illegal act. in myy view of the law it is illegal. The only reason it exists is becuase of a court full of lawyers who have no clue about science.