what if a woman's doctor explains to her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, if it doesn't miscarry it (and it is highly likey that she will), she will most probably never be able to have a child again? That if she doesn't abort, she almost certainly will ruin her chances of ever having a child?
A comment regarding the posting of abortion photos:
You know, it would probably be equally productive of commentary for me to find and post pictures of children beaten to death by their parents under the age of six or so. I haven't, because I was hoping this conversation could take place on a civilized level.
How ignorant are these proabortionists going to get?
Feminists at the University of New Mexico have asked the administration to forbid anti-abortion activists from displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses because they constitute “hate speech” against women, reports the Daily Lobo.
Such displays by Justice for All do not constitute free speech, said Gail Houston, director of the Women Studies program on campus.
“I think a lot of people felt - and we had a lot of discussion - that we do believe in free speech, and they have a right to free speech," Houston said. "But there is a difference between free speech and hate speech."
Houston sent a memo to the dean of students claiming the images are inflammatory or malicious speech against women.
The mother can live with a different blood typed child in her, but not a different blood type organ donation.
If the unborn child has a heart beat, shy's away from painful situations, different DNA and a different blood type, etc., how can you consider it a part of the mother's body? This does not stand up with any science at all.
there is something called "involuntary manslaughter" you know.
I know, but was it natures choice that the child was miscarried or was it the guy who pushed the pregnant mother down the stairs? Huge difference that you can even understand.
The mother can live with a different blood typed child in her, but not a different blood type organ donation
and more than one has died because of the fetus inside.
If the unborn child has a heart beat, shy's away from painful situations, different DNA and a different blood type, etc., how can you consider it a part of the mother's body?
What about the first 5 weeks when there is no cord? Is the unborn child not a part of the mother at first and then is later in your theory?
All the cord does is feed the baby and get rid of waste. Kind of like the bottle and diaper.
and you are gonna decide what is "nature's choice" as well as the doctor's choice and the mother's choice.
Nature does it's own thing. If the child dies of natural causes, then what are you getting at? Are you claiming that it would be the mother's intentional fault if the child dies without any outside help?
I see.
You are blind if you cannot see that a child with different blood type and DNA is not just another part of the mother's body. Within three to seven days after fertilization it can be determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl
What about a test tube baby? Just what does that have in common with the mother?
Here's some more science for ya:
In blood samples from pregnant women, researchers isolated molecules produced only by genes in the placenta. The molecules, messenger RNA, give genetic information about the fetus, not the mother, because genetically the placenta is part of the baby. link
It would appear by this statement that the placenta and the baby are different from the rest of the mother's body. This is not something taken from another human and transplanted into the mother, this is a growing and developing being that is in the mother's body.
Here's another:
They knew that fundamental reproductive immunology suggests maternal immune cells don’t routinely traffic across the placenta. This is in part because the fetus is genetically different from the mother and will be recognized by her immune cells as foreign, resulting in what is known as a negative "graft-vs.-host" rejection response in the fetus. link
So the immune cells of the mother do not even travel near the fetus because they would recognize it as being foreign to the mother's body.
How about if the mother test positive for HIV? Will the fetus be positive also?
An unborn baby has about a one in seven chance of catching HIV if the mother is HIV positive. This means that most babies don't catch HIV from their mothers during pregnancy. link
So this "part of the mother's body" only has a 1 in 7 chance of being HIV positive.
Your position of it being a part of the mother's body is looking pretty weak. Do you have any scientific proof for this theory?
Nature does it's own thing. If the child dies of natural causes, then what are you getting at? Are you claiming that it would be the mother's intentional fault if the child dies without any outside help?
miscarriage is a bit more complicated than that.
You are blind if you cannot see that a child with different blood type and DNA is not just another part of the mother's body. Within three to seven days after fertilization it can be determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl
that doesn't change the fact that until it's BORN, it belongs to the mother. It has no identity separate from the mother. It's HERS. SHE OWNS IT. It is not a separate thing. It has NO RIGHTS beyond what it's mother gives it. It does NOT gain separate status until IT IS BORN.
So a person who has lost his legs is not a person to you?
it BELONGS entirely to the mother. It's hers to do with what SHE ahd SHE alone chooses.
Why? Because of an umbilical cord is what you originally stated, but what about the first 5 weeks when there is not one? How can you claim that it is not a part of the mother's body for 5 weeks and then it is and then it is not again?
The fetus can have different blood type than the mother, different DNA, it can even be determined that it is a different sex within the first 3 days. How is it possible to even claim that it is another organ so to speak of the mother?
It has no identity separate from the mother.
I have just shown you many seperate identities that it has and yet you refuse to see it. This stuff is not from an anti-abortion site, it is from scientific sites.
Yes, this should be interesting
My morality is the true morality.
I'm sure you believe the same of yours.
My morality doesn't believe in ripping babies to shreds.
Yours does.
I'll stick with my morality.
You stick with yours.
believe in?
where do you get that?
I've never performed an abortion, nor would I. All I believe in is that I have no right interfering with what someone does concerning their own body.
I've never even so much as struck another human.
Why do you think I "believe" in it? And what does "believing" in it mean? I mean, it happens, it's not something that requires belief.
As for ripping humans to shreds, do you "believe" in war? Because people are being ripped to shreds in your name as we speak.
"My morality doesn't believe in ripping babies to shreds."
Read this again. Do you really want to say this, JT?
what if a woman's doctor explains to her that if she tries to carry her fetus to term, if it doesn't miscarry it (and it is highly likey that she will), she will most probably never be able to have a child again? That if she doesn't abort, she almost certainly will ruin her chances of ever having a child?
what do you say to this woman?
All I believe in is that I have no right interfering with what someone does concerning their own body.
Their own body? Where do you get this nonsense? What about the baby's body?
Read this again. Do you really want to say this, JT?
Yes
I usually avoid this subject, but I have a hard time with the Liberal "perspectives" being delivered here lately.
They're condoning murder when they say as long as the cord isn't cut, it's ok to "Abort" the "Fetus".
it wholly belongs to the mother's body.
That's just crazy.
It's justification.
Whatever gets ya through the night.
"I usually avoid this subject, but I have a hard time with the Liberal "perspectives" being delivered here lately."
So you ratchet up the tone of your rhetoric to match the tone of the other side.
And then you talk about the morality of doing it.
What kind of macabre theater is this?
There is no one "true" morality. That's just silly
You know what they say when someone says that, Damon: You're saying there's no true morality, because you don't want to be held to it.
I'm playing Devils Advocate on Morality:
Get it?
I agree
But I ascribe to a moral theory of my own, and make my moral decisions most of the times within its premises.
But that doesn't make the way I believe any more true than the way anyone else does.
What about the baby's body?
it wholly belongs to the mother's body.
Then why is the DNA of the "fetus" different than the mother's? If they are one and the same, shouldn't the DNA match?
because a man impregnated her body
it still belongs to the mother's body
it's not a separate entity until it's born regardless of it's DNA
it still belongs to the mother's body
So your right arm can have different DNA than your left arm?
and if I have a kidney implanted, it's becomes my body's as well.
it's not a separate entity until it's born regardless of it's DNA
bingo
do you think that the DNA of an implanted organ still has the rights of the doner who's DNA it shares?
do you think that the DNA of an implanted organ still has the rights of the doner who's DNA it shares?
I don't know, but it sure wouldn't have a different blood type.
wouldn't matter, it would still belong to the body.
do you consider a miscarriage to be manslaughter?
wouldn't matter, it would still belong to the body.
LOL. If you put another blood typed organ in a body, would it work or would the body reject it?
do you consider a miscarriage to be manslaughter?
Depends on the circumstances. If it was caused by someone, yes.
this has exactly what to do with anything?
depends on what circumstances?
there is something called "involuntary manslaughter" you know.
So you ratchet up the tone of your rhetoric to match the tone of the other side.
The truth really sucks, doesn't it? Damn baby killer can't handle it.
do you consider a miscarriage to be manslaughter?
The usual liberal idiocy. Miscarriages and abortions are not the same.
there is something called "involuntary manslaughter" you know.
Yes but you still need some human act.
A comment regarding the posting of abortion photos:
How ignorant are these proabortionists going to get?
Feminists at the University of New Mexico have asked the administration to forbid anti-abortion activists from displaying graphic photos of aborted fetuses because they constitute “hate speech” against women, reports the Daily Lobo.
Such displays by Justice for All do not constitute free speech, said Gail Houston, director of the Women Studies program on campus.
“I think a lot of people felt - and we had a lot of discussion - that we do believe in free speech, and they have a right to free speech," Houston said. "But there is a difference between free speech and hate speech."
Houston sent a memo to the dean of students claiming the images are inflammatory or malicious speech against women.
"How ignorant are these proabortionists going to get? "
It is pretty ignorant to think that a conversation on this thread could take place at a civilized level.
not surprising, rick, after all we are talking about an act that is uncivilized.
I'm talking about a conversation that is uncivilized.
Uncivilized conversation should not bother the suporters of the uncivilized act. I mean uncivilized acts provoke strong responses.
Civilized acts provoke weak arguments from their detractors
but abortion isn't civilized. a neanderthal, such as you, wouldn't understand.
sure it is
uncivilized would be if society weren't accepting of it
uncivilized would be if society weren't accepting of it
German society accepted the Nazi's. Did that make the Nazi's behavior civilized?
irrelevant
not irrelvant to your comment, which was "uncivilized would be if society weren't accepting of it."
this has exactly what to do with anything?
The mother can live with a different blood typed child in her, but not a different blood type organ donation.
If the unborn child has a heart beat, shy's away from painful situations, different DNA and a different blood type, etc., how can you consider it a part of the mother's body? This does not stand up with any science at all.
there is something called "involuntary manslaughter" you know.
I know, but was it natures choice that the child was miscarried or was it the guy who pushed the pregnant mother down the stairs? Huge difference that you can even understand.
and more than one has died because of the fetus inside.
it's called an umbilical cord.
and you are gonna decide what is "nature's choice" as well as the doctor's choice and the mother's choice.
I see.
uncivilized would be if society weren't accepting of it
I don't get it. What's logical about that?
it's called an umbilical cord.
What about the first 5 weeks when there is no cord? Is the unborn child not a part of the mother at first and then is later in your theory?
All the cord does is feed the baby and get rid of waste. Kind of like the bottle and diaper.
and you are gonna decide what is "nature's choice" as well as the doctor's choice and the mother's choice.
Nature does it's own thing. If the child dies of natural causes, then what are you getting at? Are you claiming that it would be the mother's intentional fault if the child dies without any outside help?
I see.
You are blind if you cannot see that a child with different blood type and DNA is not just another part of the mother's body. Within three to seven days after fertilization it can be determine if the new human being is a boy or a girl
What about a test tube baby? Just what does that have in common with the mother?
Here's some more science for ya:
It would appear by this statement that the placenta and the baby are different from the rest of the mother's body. This is not something taken from another human and transplanted into the mother, this is a growing and developing being that is in the mother's body.
Here's another:
So the immune cells of the mother do not even travel near the fetus because they would recognize it as being foreign to the mother's body.
How about if the mother test positive for HIV? Will the fetus be positive also?
So this "part of the mother's body" only has a 1 in 7 chance of being HIV positive.
Your position of it being a part of the mother's body is looking pretty weak. Do you have any scientific proof for this theory?
okay...let it get out and walk around.
it BELONGS entirely to the mother. It's hers to do with what SHE ahd SHE alone chooses.
until she GIVES BIRTH to it, it's hers.
miscarriage is a bit more complicated than that.
that doesn't change the fact that until it's BORN, it belongs to the mother. It has no identity separate from the mother. It's HERS. SHE OWNS IT. It is not a separate thing. It has NO RIGHTS beyond what it's mother gives it. It does NOT gain separate status until IT IS BORN.
OUR SOCIETY DOES NOT EXTEND INTO A WOMAN'S WOMB.
okay...let it get out and walk around.
So a person who has lost his legs is not a person to you?
it BELONGS entirely to the mother. It's hers to do with what SHE ahd SHE alone chooses.
Why? Because of an umbilical cord is what you originally stated, but what about the first 5 weeks when there is not one? How can you claim that it is not a part of the mother's body for 5 weeks and then it is and then it is not again?
The fetus can have different blood type than the mother, different DNA, it can even be determined that it is a different sex within the first 3 days. How is it possible to even claim that it is another organ so to speak of the mother?
It has no identity separate from the mother.
I have just shown you many seperate identities that it has and yet you refuse to see it. This stuff is not from an anti-abortion site, it is from scientific sites.
OUR SOCIETY DOES NOT EXTEND INTO A WOMAN'S WOMB.
If coming out of the womb is now your stance, how can you claim that they can have it outside of the womb and still kill it?
let it get out in the first 5 to 7 day.
I wasn't aware I did.
let it get out...period
So your stance that if the cord is still attached they can kill it goes against what you profess to be point of birth now?
BIRTH
it's a process, not a single point in time. what don't you get about his?