Not according to science. They are totally different beings.
the act of birth imparts "individual" status, not the act of conception
If you are speaking about an age on your driver's liscence, yes. That is only because the moment of birth is a lot easier to determine and verify than the actual moment of conception. The moment of conception determines scientifically if it is an individual.
depending on what stage in the pregnancy
At a mere 3 days, they can determine that the child is a different sex from the mother. The DNA is that different. The child is not attached to the mother via an umbilical cord for 5 or more weeks.
they belong to the mother entirely.
Then why is there so many differences? Everything from the makeup of the cells to the sex is different.
no, it's the mother's fluid.
Then why is the DNA makeup of the fluid a match to the child and not the mother?
How are amniotic fluid specimens collected? An OB/GYN will have to perform a procedure called amniocentesis (or CVS) to collect cells (containing the DNA) from the unborn child. These cells are found in the amniotic fluid. link
they are still entirely my eyes.
Do your eyes have different DNA? Different blood type? If you are HIV positive, does that show up in fluids extracted from your eyes?
Yes, the eyes are entirely yours, but an unborn child is not entirely the mother's body. Way too many differences for that assertion to be made.
it belongs entirely to the mother until the mother gives it birth.
Again, what scientific proof do you have of this. The umbilical cord that you claimed as proof before contains the same DNA of the child. It is nothing more than a feeding tube used to nourish the child. The mother's body would even reject the baby as a foriegn tissue if it was given the chance.
I have provided much scientific proof to support that they are different than the mother. Now it is your turn. Simply saying that it is a part of the mother does not make it so.
again, once they are deposited inside her, they become hers...entirely.
Wrong. They are totally different scientifically than anything else on her body.
have you been BORN yet?
Yes, but a tube from another person is "deposited" inside of me in your example, so I guess that other person no longer exists and is now a part of me to do with as I please in your theory.
what constitutes an individual isn't a scientific distinction.
So you do not think that DNA evidence should stand up in court cases?
Wrong. They are totally different scientifically than anything else on her body.
my car is entirely different scientifically from anything on my body...it's still entirely my car.
Yes, but a tube from another person is "deposited" inside of me in your example, so I guess that other person no longer exists and is now a part of me to do with as I please in your theory.
so, the person has the right to keep the tube in you for as long as it needs to keep them alive?
my car is entirely different scientifically from anything on my body...it's still entirely my car.
My 11 year old is entirely my child as well, however, he is not me. he does not belong to me in a way that I can do whatever i wish to him. Same applies to an unborn child. It would be killing to end the life of either one.
so, the person has the right to keep the tube in you for as long as it needs to keep them alive?
You are evading my question. Does this person no longer exist because of a tube that is in me?
how about this...mandatory sterilization of all males. The only way they can have it reversed is if they get the permission of a woman who wants to have a child and agrees not to abort it? after she is made pregnant, the man get resterilized.
I don't doubt that we have the technology at this point.
That's right they are carrying another seperate human being that you don't give a damn gets butchered or not.
and you don't give a damn about the rights of the woman.
since no one has managed to answer the "sterilize all the men" scenario, how about we kill every man who impregnates a woman who doesn't want to give birth to a child?
and you don't give a damn about the rights of the woman.
Sure I do. But I give more weight to life over inconveince. You think it is okay to butcher the child for the sake of convenience.
since no one has managed to answer the "sterilize all the men" scenario, how about we kill every man who impregnates a woman who doesn't want to give birth to a child?
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception. But butchering the child should not be an option. It is just like what Al Queada did to Nick Berg.
You think it is okay to butcher the child for the sake of convenience.
have you ever known any woman who had an abortion, bodine?
it's not something that is "convenient" for them.
It's a horrible decision to have to make....and have some men want to tell them how to make it doesn't make it any easier.
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should sterilize all the men.
if men are going to decide that she has to give birth if they get her pregnant, than she should be able to decide if they are capable of getting her pregnant in the first place.
have you ever known any woman who had an abortion, bodine?
Yes.
it's not something that is "convenient" for them.
It most certainly was.
It's a horrible decision to have to make....and have some men want to tell them how to make it doesn't make it any easier.
There is right and wrong and butchering the child is wrong.
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should sterilize all the men.
Isn't there some problem in your world regarding the man's rights? But obviously you have no problem being inconsistent and dishonest. That is your entire makeup.
if men are going to decide that she has to give birth if they get her pregnant, than she should be able to decide if they are capable of getting her pregnant in the first place. She can just not have sex.
This woman you know who had an abortion...you know that she felt it was something that was "convienent" for her?
i know at least three and the answer for all three is yes. It was done because it would mess up their lives.
because it's not a pleasant thing for someone to have to go through. I thought your view it was even less of a problem than getting rid of ingrown toenail.
there is right and wrong and it's not your decision to make for a pregnant woman as to what to do concerning her pregnancy. Right and wrong is everyone's business. The child for all intents and purposes is being murdered.
It's not a good thing, but it's not another person's right to make a decision about it either. Life or convenience. We know which one is your priority.
Isn't there some problem in your world regarding the man's rights? If the woman has no rights concerning her fetus, then the man has no right concerning his sperm. The idiocy continues. There is no comparison between a child and a sperm. You are digustingly immoral and will say anything that will promote your immorality.
it's your inconsistency here that I'm pointing out. Again you lie.
I thought your view it was even less of a problem than getting rid of ingrown toenail.
you think a lot of thing about me that just aren't the case.
I've always said that it's a horrible traumatic experience for anyone to have to go through.
The child for all intents and purposes is being murdered.
if a man impregnants a woman without knowing that she won't abort it, he would be an accessory to what you think is murder.
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception.
if a man doesn't want a fetus to be aborted, he shouldn't have sex with a woman who might abort her fetus.
you have it turned around...it's not the woman who impregnants the man, it's the man who does the impregnating. Why isn't it his responsibility to insure that he's not impregnating a woman who doesn't want to have a child?
if a man impregnants a woman without knowing that she won't abort it, he would be an accessory to what you think is murder.
Only if he agreed to the procedure.
he agreed to it when he agreed to have sex with a woman. he has to knowthat she wants to be impregnated. The responsibility lies with the impregnator, not the impregnatee, to assure that the mother will not decide to abort it. Since he impregnated her, he is the cause of her being in a position to decide to abort it. Had he not impregnated a woman who did not want to be impregnated (as evidenced by her dicision to abort), there would be no reason to talk about an abortion.
I, personally have never impregnated a woman that was going to abort any pregnancy caused by me. I am against any woman I love having to make such a decision. I am anti-abortion not by denying a woman's right to choose her medical care (even if it results in the end the life of her fetus). I am against calling women murderers because of what they choose to do about having been impregnated by a male when she did not want to be impregnated.
I AM FORnever creating a situation where a woman might want to consider the option of abortion. If it's a question of her health,than it's self defense...a miscarriage.
It's called being responsible.
NOW, if mencan't be responsible, perhaps we hold the imprenator responsible for the murder with, say, mandatory sterilization for any pregnancy created that resulted in a choice of abortion by the impregnatee.
Men get one shot at getting it right and then lose their ability to do it again. A woman without the right to choose an abortion may be risking the very same thing. It does happen tha an abortion is the difficult decision one makes to try to secure future reproductive abilities. Give the impregnator the same deal.
and wouldn't a woman be more apt to go ahead and carry the child if she knew that if she didn't, her boyfriend wouldn't be getting another shot at putting you in a position where you can choose to abort. That would slow the rate down some.
man, you are so far off it's not even funny. I am right on but you are right it isn't funny.
he agreed to it when he agreed to have sex with a woman. Insanity.
I am anti-abortion not by denying a woman's right to choose her medical care (even if it results in the end the life of her fetus). You are not antiabortion. It is just another lie you tell yourself.I am against calling women murderers because of what they choose to do about having been impregnated by a male when she did not want to be impregnated. They are butchering their children and for all intents and purposes that is murder. No wonder you are so damned warped. You lie to yourself over and over and over.
It's called being responsible. No it is irresponsible.
It does happen tha an abortion is the difficult decision one makes to try to secure future reproductive abilities. That is just a lie you tell yourself to justify your position.
it's identity is entirely with the mother.
Not according to science. They are totally different beings.
the act of birth imparts "individual" status, not the act of conception
If you are speaking about an age on your driver's liscence, yes. That is only because the moment of birth is a lot easier to determine and verify than the actual moment of conception. The moment of conception determines scientifically if it is an individual.
depending on what stage in the pregnancy
At a mere 3 days, they can determine that the child is a different sex from the mother. The DNA is that different. The child is not attached to the mother via an umbilical cord for 5 or more weeks.
they belong to the mother entirely.
Then why is there so many differences? Everything from the makeup of the cells to the sex is different.
no, it's the mother's fluid.
Then why is the DNA makeup of the fluid a match to the child and not the mother?
they are still entirely my eyes.
Do your eyes have different DNA? Different blood type? If you are HIV positive, does that show up in fluids extracted from your eyes?
Yes, the eyes are entirely yours, but an unborn child is not entirely the mother's body. Way too many differences for that assertion to be made.
it's entirely the mother's until it's born.
it has no "self" until that point.
it belongs entirely to the mother until the mother gives it birth.
so, you think pregnant women should be able to deduct their fetus on their taxes too?
it belongs entirely to the mother until the mother gives it birth.
Again, what scientific proof do you have of this. The umbilical cord that you claimed as proof before contains the same DNA of the child. It is nothing more than a feeding tube used to nourish the child. The mother's body would even reject the baby as a foriegn tissue if it was given the chance.
I have provided much scientific proof to support that they are different than the mother. Now it is your turn. Simply saying that it is a part of the mother does not make it so.
so, you think pregnant women should be able to deduct their fetus on their taxes too?
As I stated earlier, it is easier to prove when the child is born than when it was concieved. That is why the birth date is used.
it's still the mother's.
the mother created it and until she gives birth to it, it's hers.
if someone attaches a tube to you that they need in order to stay alive, do you have no say in it?
BORN
it's not an individual until it's BORN.
so, you think pregnant women should be able to deduct their fetus on their taxes too?
Crabs is reaching again.
crabgrass 5/12/04 10:07pm
it's not an individual until it's BORN.
That's your opinion. I don't share it.
it's still the mother's.
I'll take that as you are unable to defend your position.
the mother created it and until she gives birth to it, it's hers.
Only 23 of the 46 chromosones came from the mother. The other 23 have nothing to do with her.
if someone attaches a tube to you that they need in order to stay alive, do you have no say in it?
Does this tube mean that that person is me?
once again, your ability to state the obvious is very impressive.
it's not an individual until it's BORN.
Prove it scientifically.
again, once they are deposited inside her, they become hers...entirely.
have you been BORN yet?
what constitutes an individual isn't a scientific distinction.
it's a social one.
again, once they are deposited inside her, they become hers...entirely.
Wrong. They are totally different scientifically than anything else on her body.
have you been BORN yet?
Yes, but a tube from another person is "deposited" inside of me in your example, so I guess that other person no longer exists and is now a part of me to do with as I please in your theory.
what constitutes an individual isn't a scientific distinction.
So you do not think that DNA evidence should stand up in court cases?
my car is entirely different scientifically from anything on my body...it's still entirely my car.
so, the person has the right to keep the tube in you for as long as it needs to keep them alive?
of course the mother's fetus has different DNA...it's still the mother's.
the mother has not yet given BIRTH to it and made it an individual.
my car is entirely different scientifically from anything on my body...it's still entirely my car.
My 11 year old is entirely my child as well, however, he is not me. he does not belong to me in a way that I can do whatever i wish to him. Same applies to an unborn child. It would be killing to end the life of either one.
so, the person has the right to keep the tube in you for as long as it needs to keep them alive?
You are evading my question. Does this person no longer exist because of a tube that is in me?
the mother has not yet given BIRTH to it and made it an individual.
Doesn't matter. It is totally different than anything about the mother. The mother's body would reject it as foriegn tissue if it was allowed to.
your 11-year old person is not entirely yours.
he belongs to himself. he is an individual...and has been since his BIRTH.
have they been BORN yet?
the mother's body DOES reject it...it's called BIRTH.
until she rejects it, it's HERS
he is an individual...
Exactly.
and has been since his BIRTH.
He has had different DNA, etc. since conception. He has had measurable brain activity since 43 days after conception. Birth has nothing to do with it.
have they been BORN yet?
Irrelevant. There is a tube in me so this must mean that the person no longer exist, right?
the mother's body DOES reject it...it's called BIRTH.
Birth does not utilize antibodies to reject what her body recognizes as a foriegn matter. That is what the unborn child is protected from.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 5/12/04 10:43pm
Don't confuse him with facts Dan.
LOL.
I am off to bed now. Have a goodnight all.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 5/12/04 10:59pm
Good night Dan. Sleep well.
well yea...it utilizes contractions...glad to see that Rich isn't the onlyu one good at stating the obvious around here.
how about this...mandatory sterilization of all males. The only way they can have it reversed is if they get the permission of a woman who wants to have a child and agrees not to abort it? after she is made pregnant, the man get resterilized.
I don't doubt that we have the technology at this point.
This should effectively eliminate abortions.
crabgrass 5/12/04 11:29pm
You are even dumber than I gave you credit for.
You are being as obnoxious and argumentative as ever.
Do you still want to fuck me?
so, you confirm that you thought the "fuck you" in my "fuck you too" was a sexual overture...
since my reply included "too", that means you made the first overture. I mearly returned it.
hate to have to break it to you though...that's not how I meant it. Sort of creepy that you did though.
so you are against sterilization?
why?
individual: distinguished from others by special characteristics. Certainly fits an unborn child.
one of the things that distinguishes it is that it's inside of a woman.
and a pregnant woman is distinguised from other women by a special characteristic as well.
and a pregnant woman is distinguised from other women by a special characteristic as well.
That's right they are carrying another seperate human being that you don't give a damn gets butchered or not.
it's not a separate human being
and you don't give a damn about the rights of the woman.
since no one has managed to answer the "sterilize all the men" scenario, how about we kill every man who impregnates a woman who doesn't want to give birth to a child?
it's not a separate human being
your denying the truth does not change the truth, Demon. The only people that believe that are people that lie to themselves.
your denying the truth does not change the truth, Demon
truth is relative
and you don't give a damn about the rights of the woman.
Sure I do. But I give more weight to life over inconveince. You think it is okay to butcher the child for the sake of convenience.
since no one has managed to answer the "sterilize all the men" scenario, how about we kill every man who impregnates a woman who doesn't want to give birth to a child?
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception. But butchering the child should not be an option. It is just like what Al Queada did to Nick Berg.
truth is relative
only someone that wants to deny the truth says that.
have you ever known any woman who had an abortion, bodine?
it's not something that is "convenient" for them.
It's a horrible decision to have to make....and have some men want to tell them how to make it doesn't make it any easier.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should sterilize all the men.
if men are going to decide that she has to give birth if they get her pregnant, than she should be able to decide if they are capable of getting her pregnant in the first place.
have you ever known any woman who had an abortion, bodine?
Yes.
it's not something that is "convenient" for them.
It most certainly was.
It's a horrible decision to have to make....and have some men want to tell them how to make it doesn't make it any easier.
There is right and wrong and butchering the child is wrong.
If the woman does not want to get pregnant then she shouldn't have sex or do something to prevent conception.
If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant, she should sterilize all the men.
Isn't there some problem in your world regarding the man's rights? But obviously you have no problem being inconsistent and dishonest. That is your entire makeup.
if men are going to decide that she has to give birth if they get her pregnant, than she should be able to decide if they are capable of getting her pregnant in the first place. She can just not have sex.
This woman you know who had an abortion...you know that she felt it was something that was "convienent" for her?
because it's not a pleasant thing for someone to have to go through.
there is right and wrong and it's not your decision to make for a pregnant woman as to what to do concerning her pregnancy.
It's not a good thing, but it's not another person's right to make a decision about it either.
If the woman has no rights concerning her fetus, then the man has no right concerning his sperm.
it's your inconsistancy here that I'm pointing out.
what is the one "truth" ?
This woman you know who had an abortion...you know that she felt it was something that was "convienent" for her?
i know at least three and the answer for all three is yes. It was done because it would mess up their lives.
because it's not a pleasant thing for someone to have to go through. I thought your view it was even less of a problem than getting rid of ingrown toenail.
there is right and wrong and it's not your decision to make for a pregnant woman as to what to do concerning her pregnancy. Right and wrong is everyone's business. The child for all intents and purposes is being murdered.
It's not a good thing, but it's not another person's right to make a decision about it either. Life or convenience. We know which one is your priority.
Isn't there some problem in your world regarding the man's rights?
If the woman has no rights concerning her fetus, then the man has no right concerning his sperm. The idiocy continues. There is no comparison between a child and a sperm. You are digustingly immoral and will say anything that will promote your immorality.
it's your inconsistency here that I'm pointing out. Again you lie.
you think a lot of thing about me that just aren't the case.
I've always said that it's a horrible traumatic experience for anyone to have to go through.
if a man impregnants a woman without knowing that she won't abort it, he would be an accessory to what you think is murder.
if a man doesn't want a fetus to be aborted, he shouldn't have sex with a woman who might abort her fetus.
you have it turned around...it's not the woman who impregnants the man, it's the man who does the impregnating. Why isn't it his responsibility to insure that he's not impregnating a woman who doesn't want to have a child?
without that sperm, there is no child.
remove the sperm from the equation and you eliminate the need for an abortion.
Only if he agreed to the procedure. You are one warped dude.
man, you are so far off it's not even funny.
it's called an imagination, you should try one.
Only if he agreed to the procedure.
he agreed to it when he agreed to have sex with a woman. he has to knowthat she wants to be impregnated. The responsibility lies with the impregnator, not the impregnatee, to assure that the mother will not decide to abort it. Since he impregnated her, he is the cause of her being in a position to decide to abort it. Had he not impregnated a woman who did not want to be impregnated (as evidenced by her dicision to abort), there would be no reason to talk about an abortion.
I, personally have never impregnated a woman that was going to abort any pregnancy caused by me. I am against any woman I love having to make such a decision. I am anti-abortion not by denying a woman's right to choose her medical care (even if it results in the end the life of her fetus). I am against calling women murderers because of what they choose to do about having been impregnated by a male when she did not want to be impregnated.
I AM FORnever creating a situation where a woman might want to consider the option of abortion. If it's a question of her health,than it's self defense...a miscarriage.
It's called being responsible.
NOW, if mencan't be responsible, perhaps we hold the imprenator responsible for the murder with, say, mandatory sterilization for any pregnancy created that resulted in a choice of abortion by the impregnatee.
Men get one shot at getting it right and then lose their ability to do it again. A woman without the right to choose an abortion may be risking the very same thing. It does happen tha an abortion is the difficult decision one makes to try to secure future reproductive abilities. Give the impregnator the same deal.
and wouldn't a woman be more apt to go ahead and carry the child if she knew that if she didn't, her boyfriend wouldn't be getting another shot at putting you in a position where you can choose to abort. That would slow the rate down some.
man, you are so far off it's not even funny. I am right on but you are right it isn't funny.
he agreed to it when he agreed to have sex with a woman. Insanity.
I am anti-abortion not by denying a woman's right to choose her medical care (even if it results in the end the life of her fetus). You are not antiabortion. It is just another lie you tell yourself.I am against calling women murderers because of what they choose to do about having been impregnated by a male when she did not want to be impregnated. They are butchering their children and for all intents and purposes that is murder. No wonder you are so damned warped. You lie to yourself over and over and over.
It's called being responsible. No it is irresponsible.
It does happen tha an abortion is the difficult decision one makes to try to secure future reproductive abilities. That is just a lie you tell yourself to justify your position.