Sometimes a middle ground just isn't enough. To me it is totally unacceptable for it to happen at all. Remember the "seperate but equal" thing that was tried? Not good enough was it?
Think of it as if the child was born. If a court ruling decided that it was alright to "abort" them, would 3 years old be an acceptable middle ground to you if there was many who wanted it to be a higher age?
If a fetus is a mass of cells that does not have any rights and is not a person, what is a clone? If clones are not people and have no rights, can I clone some women and whore them out for my own profit? Maybe grow them to be butchered for spare parts? After all, they are only a mass of cells grown in a tube.Â
Liberals New World Dictionary entry: person
Pronunciation:
'p&r-s&n
1: a mass of cells that passes out of a vagina more times than it passes into
Urine is a transparent solution that is clear to amber in color, and usually is light yellow. It is the byproduct or waste fluid secreted by the kidneys, transported by the ureters to the urinary bladder where it is stored until it is voided through the urethra. Urine is made up of a watery solution of metabolic wastes (such as urea), dissolved salts and organic materials. Fluid and materials being filtered by the kidneys, destined to become urine, comes from the blood or interstitial fluid. The composition of urine is adjusted in the process of reabsorption when essential molecules needed by the body, such as glucose, are reabsorbed back into the blood stream via carrier molecules. The remaining fluid contains high concentrations of urea and other excess or potentially toxic substances that will be released from the body via urination. Urine flows through the following structures: the kidney, ureter, bladder, and finally the urethra. Urine is produced by a process of filtration, reabsorption, and tubular secretion.
Urine contains large amounts of urea, an excellent source of nitrogenfor plants. As such it is a useful accelerator for compost. Urea is 10,000 times less toxic than ammonia and is a byproduct of deamination (2 NH3 molecules) and cellular respiration's (1 CO2 molecule) products combining together. Other components include various inorganic saltssuch as sodium chloride(the discharge of sodium through urine is known as natriuresis .)
Bacteria are unicellular and therefore do not meet my definition of a "mass of cells".
And unless there is a bladder infection, there are no bacteria in urine; as you posted, it's a sterile fluid. There are usually epithelial cells present in urine, though; not a lot, but they're there.
Not by either legal or medical definition. That's your opinion. No. Unborn children are by definition human beings. Look up the words. I know you enjoy the lie. Lying to others and lying to yourself. It is people like you that are the root of the problemÂ
My opinion on when life begins is somewhere in the third trimester. It is not a question of when life begins. Unborn children are human beings from conception no matter what point you wish to declare life begins. You will note that RvW specifically says that the states may make laws concerning abortion in the third trimester, but most states that have tried have tried to outlaw it completely. You need to read the case much more closely. If you read it in its entirety there is only one conclusion that a reasonable person can draw desipte some gratuitousreferences to the contrary.
The conservatives around here will compromise not one inch.
You can give them third trimester, 24 hour notification, parental consent. All commonsense hardnosed bargaining. All would reduce the number of abortions, if that is the stated goal. And I think it's a good goal.
adjective: not yet brought into existence (Example: "Unborn generations")
Quick definitions (Child)
noun: a young person of either sex
Something that you cannot see with the naked eye is not a child. Something that looks like a tadpole is not a child. Somewhere in the third trimester you have a thing that looks like a human being and can live without life support; that's a child.
Gratuitous insults don't help the presentation of an argument, jethro, they just make you look like you're following the old adage of "If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, call your opponent names."
adjective: not yet brought into existence (Example: "Unborn generations") oh the unborn exist.
Quick definitions (Child)
noun: a young person of either sex  dishonest people hide behind semantics.
Something that you cannot see with the naked eye is not a child. That is nonsense.   Something that looks like a tadpole is not a child. More semantics. the unborn child is a human being. Somewhere in the third trimester you have a thing that looks like a human being and can live without life support; that's a child. Only if it looks like a human being to pieter is it a human being? What about logic?
Gratuitous insults don't help the presentation of an argument, jethro, they just make you look like you're following the old adage of "If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, call your opponent names." The facts are against the pro abortionists. Logic dictates that the unborn child, or whatever term you want to use, is a human being. When I insult you, you'll know it, dip.
So is the idea of compromising actually more repugnant to you than the current situation, with neither side willing to give an inch in an angry stalemate?
Only if it looks like a human being to pieter is it a human being? What about logic?
Logic says that if it doesn't look like a human being it isn't one. If you were any dumber you'd have an exoskelton, and nobody looking at you would think you were a human being.
Grandpa, that photo is a 24-week fetus, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services "Woman's Right to Know" website. 24 weeks is the beginning of the third trimester. I'll assume you were misled by a partisan website rather than engaging in deliberate deception, and I'm not being snide when I say that.
I can't help but wonder... How many of those of you who are so offended by even the mere-thought of "compromise" in dealing with this subject, have yourselves adopted EVEN ONE child born to an unwed mother, one who decided NOT to have an abortion?
What a stupid question.
It's none of your damn business, and irrelevant to the abortion issue.
I can't help but wonder... How many of those of you who are so offended by even the mere-thought of "compromise" in dealing with this subject, have yourselves adopted EVEN ONE child born to an unwed mother, one who decided NOT to have an abortion?
It's not just a mass of cells to me.
I have offered concrete, practical solutions that would help establish a mutually agreed goal.
You've offered nothing.
Nuff said.
Sometimes a middle ground just isn't enough. To me it is totally unacceptable for it to happen at all. Remember the "seperate but equal" thing that was tried? Not good enough was it?
Think of it as if the child was born. If a court ruling decided that it was alright to "abort" them, would 3 years old be an acceptable middle ground to you if there was many who wanted it to be a higher age?
I don't think that's a useful comparison, Dan.
I have offered concrete, practical solutions that would help establish a mutually agreed goal.
I don't agree. It's only practical in your mind. I'm not going to say it's ok to abort in the third trimester.
If a fetus is a mass of cells that does not have any rights and is not a person, what is a clone? If clones are not people and have no rights, can I clone some women and whore them out for my own profit? Maybe grow them to be butchered for spare parts? After all, they are only a mass of cells grown in a tube.Â
Liberals New World Dictionary entry: person
Pronunciation:
'p&r-s&n
1: a mass of cells that passes out of a vagina more times than it passes into
Such as...?
Urine is sterile.
Urine is a transparent solution that is clear to amber in color, and usually is light yellow. It is the byproduct or waste fluid secreted by the kidneys, transported by the ureters to the urinary bladder where it is stored until it is voided through the urethra. Urine is made up of a watery solution of metabolic wastes (such as urea), dissolved salts and organic materials. Fluid and materials being filtered by the kidneys, destined to become urine, comes from the blood or interstitial fluid. The composition of urine is adjusted in the process of reabsorption when essential molecules needed by the body, such as glucose, are reabsorbed back into the blood stream via carrier molecules. The remaining fluid contains high concentrations of urea and other excess or potentially toxic substances that will be released from the body via urination. Urine flows through the following structures: the kidney, ureter, bladder, and finally the urethra. Urine is produced by a process of filtration, reabsorption, and tubular secretion.
Urine contains large amounts of urea, an excellent source of nitrogenfor plants. As such it is a useful accelerator for compost. Urea is 10,000 times less toxic than ammonia and is a byproduct of deamination (2 NH3 molecules) and cellular respiration's (1 CO2 molecule) products combining together. Other components include various inorganic saltssuch as sodium chloride(the discharge of sodium through urine is known as
natriuresis
.)
If you are pissing blood you better go see a doctor! No cells and no bacteria in urine.
Where'd you get your M.D., Bill Fold?
Bacteria are unicellular and therefore do not meet my definition of a "mass of cells".
Your turn Dr. Fold!
Just trying to have a little injection of humor, don't take me too seriously.
Aztecphysicians used urine to clean external wounds to prevent infection, and administered it as a drink to relieve stomach and intestine problems.
Yummy!
Never got one...
That's what I thought. Yet you act condescending toward CSC like he's an idiot.
...tell me all about CELLS, in or OUT of URINE.
I'll stick to whooping you on financial matters. You're the expert on urine.
Then, eat shit.
Urine, eat, shit... You're just obsessed with bodily functions aren't you?
Hehehehehehe
And unless there is a bladder infection, there are no bacteria in urine; as you posted, it's a sterile fluid. There are usually epithelial cells present in urine, though; not a lot, but they're there.
Not by either legal or medical definition. That's your opinion. No. Unborn children are by definition human beings. Look up the words. I know you enjoy the lie. Lying to others and lying to yourself. It is people like you that are the root of the problemÂ
My opinion on when life begins is somewhere in the third trimester. It is not a question of when life begins. Unborn children are human beings from conception no matter what point you wish to declare life begins. You will note that RvW specifically says that the states may make laws concerning abortion in the third trimester, but most states that have tried have tried to outlaw it completely. You need to read the case much more closely. If you read it in its entirety there is only one conclusion that a reasonable person can draw desipte some gratuitousreferences to the contrary.
The conservatives around here will compromise not one inch.
You can give them third trimester, 24 hour notification, parental consent. All commonsense hardnosed bargaining. All would reduce the number of abortions, if that is the stated goal. And I think it's a good goal.
It falls on deaf ears,
Quick definitions (unborn)
Quick definitions (Child)
Something that you cannot see with the naked eye is not a child. Something that looks like a tadpole is not a child. Somewhere in the third trimester you have a thing that looks like a human being and can live without life support; that's a child.
Gratuitous insults don't help the presentation of an argument, jethro, they just make you look like you're following the old adage of "If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, call your opponent names."
Main Entry: un·born
Pronunciation: -'born
Function: adjective
:not born :not brought into life
2
:still to appear :
FUTURE
3
:existing without birth
It exists even though it has yet to leave the womb.
What part of "not brought into life" are you having trouble with? What part of "still to appear: FUTURE"?
The "oldest profession" is available to you at any time,
Why are you bringing farmers into a discussion about prostitution?
What do you think the farmers did with their crop surplus?
Quick definitions (Child)
Something that you cannot see with the naked eye is not a child. That is nonsense.   Something that looks like a tadpole is not a child. More semantics. the unborn child is a human being. Somewhere in the third trimester you have a thing that looks like a human being and can live without life support; that's a child. Only if it looks like a human being to pieter is it a human being? What about logic?
Gratuitous insults don't help the presentation of an argument, jethro, they just make you look like you're following the old adage of "If the facts are against you, argue the law; if the law is against you, argue the facts. If both the facts and the law are against you, call your opponent names." The facts are against the pro abortionists. Logic dictates that the unborn child, or whatever term you want to use, is a human being. When I insult you, you'll know it, dip.
What do you think the farmers did with their crop surplus?
Are you saying that they use them to get laid? I must be in the wrong line of work then.
"I don't agree. It's only practical in your mind. I'm not going to say it's ok to abort in the third trimester."
We're not talking about what's "OK," or moral we're talking legality.
Will you give the other side first two trimesters?
"Are you saying that they use them to get laid? "
I bet there are stories....
Will you give the other side first two trimesters?
Sorry Rat, I don't want them killing children at any age.
Then I don't think you're interested in reducing the number of abortions.
I bet there are stories....
LOL, I bet there are. Which profession would have come first, making it the oldest?
Then I don't think you're interested in reducing the number of abortions.
No, I am interested in saving all the children's lives.
So is the idea of compromising actually more repugnant to you than the current situation, with neither side willing to give an inch in an angry stalemate?
Logic says that if it doesn't look like a human being it isn't one. If you were any dumber you'd have an exoskelton, and nobody looking at you would think you were a human being.
Logic says that if it doesn't look like a human being it isn't one.
Â
16 weeks since conception
Then I don't think you're interested in reducing the number of abortions.
Reduce abortions by allowing abortions?
"Reduce abortions by allowing abortions? "
Yes.
Grandpa, that photo is a 24-week fetus, according to the Texas Department of State Health Services "Woman's Right to Know" website. 24 weeks is the beginning of the third trimester. I'll assume you were misled by a partisan website rather than engaging in deliberate deception, and I'm not being snide when I say that.
http://www.dshs.state.tx.us/wrtk/develop/week24.shtm
There's no need to personalize this. It's irrelevant if they did or if they didn't.
I'm not lecturing you. Grow a layer of skin, man
I can't help but wonder... How many of those of you who are so offended by even the mere-thought of "compromise" in dealing with this subject, have yourselves adopted EVEN ONE child born to an unwed mother, one who decided NOT to have an abortion?
What a stupid question.
It's none of your damn business, and irrelevant to the abortion issue.
Maybe they simply can't afford to adopt. Not that it matters.
Basically you're saying, no one is allowed an opinion unless they've adopted a child.
Have you adopted a child, Bill Fold?
Got any other questions, asshole?
LOL
You're the one that asked the question.
ASSHOLE!
And NO, that wasn't what I was saying, at all.
Then elaborate, because that's how I took it.
I can't help but wonder... How many of those of you who are so offended by even the mere-thought of "compromise" in dealing with this subject, have yourselves adopted EVEN ONE child born to an unwed mother, one who decided NOT to have an abortion?
What does whether you've adopted or not have anything to do with someones opinion on abortion?
Can someone with no kids have an opinion?
Can someone that doesn't want kids have an opinion?
Can someone that can't have kids have an opinion?
That is NOT a question?
Ok, it's a question.
A fucked up unrelated question, but it's a question.
I'm implying you believe that those of us that believe abortion wrong don't deserve an opinion unless we've adopted.
Otherwise I don't understand the reasoning behind the question.
Nevermind that abortion would be just as wrong in our minds whether we've adopted or not.
I've adopted!