You guys do realize that the term "fetus" comes from the Latin "foetus" meaning young or progeny don't you? link
So in essence, you are talking about the death of someones young or progeny as if it is the parents choice and we should not protect the young one. Sad how little importance you are putting on a young ones life.
Rich, when is one given rights, at birth or at conception? They don't start counting your age at conception. As such, you have no rights until birth. If the fetus is part of the mother, which it is, she has every right to remove that part of her body.
Same goes for abortion. The end result is the same as with the death penalty. You're still killing a human being.
Wrong, because the fetus is not yet a human being, and as such, is not afforded rights.
No you are wrong and horribly so. The unborn child is a human being. Just because you want to deny that doesn't change the fact. It is clear you are either immoral or amoral.
What is immoral is that you don't give a damn about an innocent human being. You think it is just fine to rip them limb from limb on a whim. You are disgusting filth, crabs.
no, it is not a human being unless it can survive on its on outside the womb.
Like crabs said, you have no business inside the body of someone else.
No one tells you when they get to invade your body
The unborn child is a human being.
you should define what a human is first
It is clear you are either immoral or amoral.
incorrect, and horribly so. Just becuase I ascribe to different moral theory than you does make you or myself any more moral, at least prima facie, relativist
You can't be as ignorant to believe a fetus isn't actually human until it is "born".
No one has still defined what a human is
Main Entry: 1hu·man Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü- Function: adjective Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE 1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans 2 : consisting of humans 3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
<such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
Main Entry: 2human Function: noun : a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
still waiting for a ruling on if I was conceived in another country does that make me a non-citizen even if I was born here?
Being born here makes you a citizen. If you are conceived elsewhere, it will depend on where you are born and the status of the parents and whether they are married or not. The worst that can happen is that the parents will have to apply to make you a citizen. In other words, let the states know that you were born and prove that at least one of the parents is a citizen of the U.S. link
No one has still defined what a human is
Actually, you have when you stated, "it is not a human being unless it can survive on its on outside the womb."
As you can tell from my tagline, my daughter recently gave birth. The child was in danger due to some complications and they induced birth a month early. He went through a normal birth and was never even in an incubator. He was born perfectly healthy and able to survive outside of the womb.
Now, according to you, my daughter should have the right to an abortion before my grandchild was born even though he was perfectly able to survive outside of the womb without any complications or mechanical assistance at all.
How do you explain this contradiction in your statements?
You can't be as ignorant to believe a fetus isn't actually human until it is "born".
it's not a separate human being, no
it's connected. It's part of the woman's body.
Now, according to you, my daughter should have the right to an abortion before my grandchild was born even though he was perfectly able to survive outside of the womb without any complications or mechanical assistance at all.
well, she had to actually...you know...give birthto it first.
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"?
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"?
what a woman does about the birth of her child is up to her, yes.
well, she had to actually...you know...give birth to it first.
That is not what was stated as a test of whether or not it is a human being. The test was if it can survive outside of the woman's body. In my grandchild's case, he could. True, he had to go through the birthing process first, but he was able to survive outside of the mother's body. Therefore, you are saying that it is alright to kill an innocent human as described by this test.
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"?
what a woman does about the birth of her child is up to her, yes.
Wow, again you are saying that it is alright to kill another innocent human as he/she lays there defenseless. How sad that you look at the innocent human life of a born baby in such a horrible way. Apparently the life of another means nothing to you. How can you possibly hold the life of my blessing of a grandchild so cheap as to chop it up and flush it down the toilet like some piece of shit?
I can't even find the words to describe the shock I felt after reading your statement. Unbelievable and horrible doesn't even come close to describing it. You truely are a sick person in need of a lot of help.
Wow, again you are saying that it is alright to kill another innocent human as he/she lays there defenseless. How sad that you look at the innocent human life of a born baby in such a horrible way.
I don't look at it the way you do...I look at it as someone else's body that I have no fucking business making decisions about.
1) A woman gives birth to a child which is found to be undesirable to the mother for various reasons. The baby is still attached via umbilical cord. If I understand you correctly, the baby is still a part of the woman's body since they are connected together. Would it be okay for her to abort/kill the baby because she does not desire the baby and it is still technically a part of her body?
2) In the rare case of siamese/conjoined twins how do you determine whose body it is? Can one claim possession of the body over the other, and have the other killed/removed?
1) A woman gives birth to a child which is found to be undesirable to the mother for various reasons. The baby is still attached via umbilical cord. If I understand you correctly, the baby is still a part of the woman's body since they are connected together. Would it be okay for her to abort/kill the baby because she does not desire the baby and it is still technically a part of her body?
It's the woman's choice. None of my business.
2) In the rare case of siamese/conjoined twins how do you determine whose body it is? Can one claim possession of the body over the other, and have the other killed/removed?
That would be entirely up to the twins, again none of my business.
Interesting. A woman could have a baby, and kill the baby while it was still attached by an umbilical cord because it was a boy and she wanted a girl, or it had a heart defect, or because it was too big.
He was able to survive outside of the womb before he was born and that was the theory being discussed, so your statement makes no sense.
no, I'm saying it's none of your business if it's part of the woman's body.
But it is the baby's body that we are discussing.
I don't look at it the way you do...I look at it as someone else's body that I have no fucking business making decisions about.
It is someone elses body, the baby's.
Using your statement, we can say that you shouldn't worry about those people who were tortured in Iraq, because it is someone elses body. You were not the one being tortured, so you shouldn't care at all. What a selfish twit you are.
I am being serious when I say that you need some psycological help when it comes to dismembering a child outside of the womb just because it still has the embilical cord attached. That is just sick and twisted. I doubt that you will find anyone to support you on this irregardless of if they are pro-abortion or not.
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"? THX 1138 5/3/04 7:23pm
Two human beings joined by a cord. ... It's OK for one to have the other chopped to bits???
Could the father of the newborn child (as his child's guardian) decide that he wants it the other way around ... cut the mother (rather than the newborn child) to bits??
This is what Crabgrass supports. Well we know he supports this: Crabgrass is all for it. Crabgrass, you are sick!
what part of "none of my fucking business" didn't you understand? I don't "support" parents teaching their children certain things, but I don't make laws against it...because it's none of my fucking business. None of my business means I neither support or reject it...it means it's none of my business. If I don't think adults should drink milk, should I try to outlaw it?
Could the father of the newborn child (as his child's guardian) decide that he wants it the other way around ... cut the mother (rather than the newborn child) to bits??
uh...is he physically supported by and connected to her?
If Rich is trying to post those pictures for shock value to the pro-choicers, he failed here. We saw enough of those in high school.
Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
Then it is a dead human being and you are back at square one
you have no business advocating barabaric procedures.
That's opinionated, for I don't view it as barbaric
Damn you are an idiot. Nothing has invaded. You damn fool.
you never went to the dentist or the doctor?
obviously you lack the necessary tools to have this debate. You committ numerous fallacies in your weak debating style, and do nothing to further your point of view. Congratulations, you have shown the logical intelligence of
A fetus has no rights?
Explain this then:
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040401/D81M8KTG0.html
Damon, for a college boy you sure don't know much.
Oh my God Rich. GW signed it? Damon will find a way to spin it.
I should say "attempt" to spin it.
Torpedo-8 5/1/04 7:25pm
Well Hell Torpedo. Damon attempts to spin just about everything else. Why should this be any different?
Damon = best poster ever
</inside joke>
fe·tus
n. pl. fe·tus·es
The unborn youngof a viviparous vertebrate having a basic structural resemblance to the adult animal.
In humans, the unborn youngfrom the end of the eighth week after conception to the moment of birth, as distinguished from the earlier embryo.
[Middle English, from Latin fetus, offspring.See dh(i)- in Indo-European Roots.]
You guys do realize that the term "fetus" comes from the Latin "foetus" meaning young or progeny don't you? link
So in essence, you are talking about the death of someones young or progeny as if it is the parents choice and we should not protect the young one. Sad how little importance you are putting on a young ones life.
as long as the mother has it inside and attached to her body, it's the mother's to do with what she wants. It's no one else's business.
Rich, when is one given rights, at birth or at conception? They don't start counting your age at conception. As such, you have no rights until birth. If the fetus is part of the mother, which it is, she has every right to remove that part of her body.
can someone who was conceived in the US and born elsewhere claim natural citizenship automatically?
OR does that mean if you were conceived while your parents were on vacation in Europe and born in the States, you aren't a natural US citizen?
the unborn have no legal rights
Not completely true. But the unborn should have the right to life just like anyone else.
Same goes for abortion. The end result is the same as with the death penalty. You're still killing a human being.
Wrong, because the fetus is not yet a human being, and as such, is not afforded rights.
No you are wrong and horribly so. The unborn child is a human being. Just because you want to deny that doesn't change the fact. It is clear you are either immoral or amoral.
as long as the mother has it inside and attached to her body, it's the mother's to do with what she wants. It's no one else's business.
The mantra of the immoral.
what is immoral is you thinking you have any business inside a woman's womb
What is immoral is that you don't give a damn about an innocent human being. You think it is just fine to rip them limb from limb on a whim. You are disgusting filth, crabs.
I think it's a woman's business to do what she will with any part of her body.
I understand that you think you can control women and their bodies, I just don't agree.
no, it is not a human being unless it can survive on its on outside the womb.
Like crabs said, you have no business inside the body of someone else.
No one tells you when they get to invade your body
The unborn child is a human being.
you should define what a human is first
It is clear you are either immoral or amoral.
incorrect, and horribly so. Just becuase I ascribe to different moral theory than you does make you or myself any more moral, at least prima facie, relativist
you should define what a human is first
3:44 PM - Fetus
3:45 PM - Baby
cut the cord
it's called "birth"
it's not a hard concept to grasp.
still waiting for a ruling on if I was conceived in another country does that make me a non-citizen even if I was born here?
No one has still defined what a human is
it's not a hard concept to grasp.
Obviously it is.
You can't be as ignorant to believe a fetus isn't actually human until it is "born".
No one has still defined what a human is
Main Entry: 1hu·man
Pronunciation: 'hyü-m&n, 'yü-
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English humain, from Middle French, from Latin humanus; akin to Latin homo human being -- more at HOMAGE
1 : of, relating to, or characteristic of humans
2 : consisting of humans
3 a : having human form or attributes b : susceptible to or representative of the sympathies and frailties of human nature
<such an inconsistency is very human -- P. E. More>
Main Entry: 2human
Function: noun
: a bipedal primate mammal (Homo sapiens) : MAN; broadly : any living or extinct member of the family (Hominidae) to which the primate belongs
still waiting for a ruling on if I was conceived in another country does that make me a non-citizen even if I was born here?
Being born here makes you a citizen. If you are conceived elsewhere, it will depend on where you are born and the status of the parents and whether they are married or not. The worst that can happen is that the parents will have to apply to make you a citizen. In other words, let the states know that you were born and prove that at least one of the parents is a citizen of the U.S. link
No one has still defined what a human is
Actually, you have when you stated, "it is not a human being unless it can survive on its on outside the womb."
As you can tell from my tagline, my daughter recently gave birth. The child was in danger due to some complications and they induced birth a month early. He went through a normal birth and was never even in an incubator. He was born perfectly healthy and able to survive outside of the womb.
Now, according to you, my daughter should have the right to an abortion before my grandchild was born even though he was perfectly able to survive outside of the womb without any complications or mechanical assistance at all.
How do you explain this contradiction in your statements?
it's not a separate human being, no
it's connected. It's part of the woman's body.
well, she had to actually...you know...give birthto it first.
it's connected. It's part of the woman's body.
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"?
what a woman does about the birth of her child is up to her, yes.
well, she had to actually...you know...give birth to it first.
That is not what was stated as a test of whether or not it is a human being. The test was if it can survive outside of the woman's body. In my grandchild's case, he could. True, he had to go through the birthing process first, but he was able to survive outside of the mother's body. Therefore, you are saying that it is alright to kill an innocent human as described by this test.
So, if a woman actually gives birth, but they haven't cut the cord yet, it's ok to chop the "fetus" to bits, because it's still "Part of the woman's body"?
what a woman does about the birth of her child is up to her, yes.
Wow, again you are saying that it is alright to kill another innocent human as he/she lays there defenseless. How sad that you look at the innocent human life of a born baby in such a horrible way. Apparently the life of another means nothing to you. How can you possibly hold the life of my blessing of a grandchild so cheap as to chop it up and flush it down the toilet like some piece of shit?
I can't even find the words to describe the shock I felt after reading your statement. Unbelievable and horrible doesn't even come close to describing it. You truely are a sick person in need of a lot of help.
you must have me confused with someone else.
yes, that's true...he had to be bornfirst.
no, I'm saying it's none of your business if it's part of the woman's body.
I don't look at it the way you do...I look at it as someone else's body that I have no fucking business making decisions about.
Crabs, how do you feel about these two cases?
1) A woman gives birth to a child which is found to be undesirable to the mother for various reasons. The baby is still attached via umbilical cord. If I understand you correctly, the baby is still a part of the woman's body since they are connected together. Would it be okay for her to abort/kill the baby because she does not desire the baby and it is still technically a part of her body?
2) In the rare case of siamese/conjoined twins how do you determine whose body it is? Can one claim possession of the body over the other, and have the other killed/removed?
It's the woman's choice. None of my business.
That would be entirely up to the twins, again none of my business.
Interesting. A woman could have a baby, and kill the baby while it was still attached by an umbilical cord because it was a boy and she wanted a girl, or it had a heart defect, or because it was too big.
ThoseMedallingKids 5/3/04 9:36pm
Crabs is a hard hearted SOB ain't he?
This is what Crabgrass supports.
you must have me confused with someone else.
No, you commented on my post 3608.
yes, that's true...he had to be born first.
He was able to survive outside of the womb before he was born and that was the theory being discussed, so your statement makes no sense.
no, I'm saying it's none of your business if it's part of the woman's body.
But it is the baby's body that we are discussing.
I don't look at it the way you do...I look at it as someone else's body that I have no fucking business making decisions about.
It is someone elses body, the baby's.
Using your statement, we can say that you shouldn't worry about those people who were tortured in Iraq, because it is someone elses body. You were not the one being tortured, so you shouldn't care at all. What a selfish twit you are.
I am being serious when I say that you need some psycological help when it comes to dismembering a child outside of the womb just because it still has the embilical cord attached. That is just sick and twisted. I doubt that you will find anyone to support you on this irregardless of if they are pro-abortion or not.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 5/3/04 10:11pm
Well we know he supports this:
Looks like dismemberment to me.
Abortion sure isn't pretty to look at now is it?
But what the hell.. Crabgrass is all for it.
Two human beings joined by a cord. ... It's OK for one to have the other chopped to bits???
Could the father of the newborn child (as his child's guardian) decide that he wants it the other way around ... cut the mother (rather than the newborn child) to bits??
Crabgrass, you are sick!
Those pictures are outta line, Rich. Go back and delete them.
This is what happens when people start talking abortion and they can't control themselves. It just escalates until it gets petty and nasty.
A Pox on both you and Crabs.
what part of "none of my fucking business" didn't you understand? I don't "support" parents teaching their children certain things, but I don't make laws against it...because it's none of my fucking business. None of my business means I neither support or reject it...it means it's none of my business. If I don't think adults should drink milk, should I try to outlaw it?
uh...is he physically supported by and connected to her?
Rick, those pictures bother me as well, but that is reality.
What the Sam Hill are you talking about?
Those pictures are outta line, Rich. Go back and delete them.
This Rick 5/4/04 6:04am
And if he had any sense of decorum he would.
If Rich is trying to post those pictures for shock value to the pro-choicers, he failed here. We saw enough of those in high school.
Now, on to what a human is. Sure, you may have defined, biologically, what a human is, but what mentally? emotionally? philosophically? And as you are all well aware of, there is more to the abortion debate than simple biology.
"We saw enough of those in high school."
Evidently Rich hasn't.
I understand that you think you can control women and their bodies, I just don't agree.
I understand you think it is fine and dandy to rip unborn children limb from limb. I also see that you have a warped sense of right and wrong.
you have no business advocating barabaric procedures.
I don't look at it the way you do...I look at it as someone else's body that I have no fucking business making decisions about.
You are an amoral disgusting piece of filth, crabs.
No it is a human being regardless.
Then it is a dead human being and you are back at square one
you have no business advocating barabaric procedures.
That's opinionated, for I don't view it as barbaric
Damn you are an idiot. Nothing has invaded. You damn fool.
you never went to the dentist or the doctor?
obviously you lack the necessary tools to have this debate. You committ numerous fallacies in your weak debating style, and do nothing to further your point of view. Congratulations, you have shown the logical intelligence of
You are an amoral digusting piec of filth, crabs.
ad hominem, your argument is flawed. try again