Abortion.What do you think about it?

Isn't all labor short in China? Management too, for that matter!

0 Replies

sirry american wid big eyes

0 Replies

Now ask me something about breakfast.

0 Replies

you mericans dont eat bleakfast

0 Replies

what you eat for runch?

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

i did answer your arguement but darkness comprehends not the things of God. Sorry.

Darkness being a noun meaning the absence of light; blackness; obscurity and/or gloom, wouldn't comprehend anything.

What if anything it has to do with Dok S is beyond me. Or maybe you buy into the old Church's propaganda about Satanism being the worship of the Devil?

0 Replies

Scott777ab wrote:

I must disagree with you the HUMAN BEING is created in the WOMB that means at the MOMENT OF CONCEPTION the HUMAN SPIRIT AND SOUL enters the egg, and that HUMAN BEING EXISTS as a HUMAN BEING.

I thank you for sharing that superstitious "belief."

But since all indications are that you do not even know if there are such things as "souls"...you cannot possibly tell anyone anything about when they "come into being."

Quote:

Any one that destroys that HUMAN BEING is commiting MURDER plain and SIMPLE.

Actually... in order for a murder to occur...the killing has to be illegal. That is what murder is...the illegal killing of a human being.

So even if your superstitions about the fetus being a living human being are correct...the act of abortion would still not be murder. It is, after all, legal.

Quote:

MURDERS YOU ARE FOR ALLOWING ABORTIONS TO TAKE PLACE
MURDERS
MURDERS
MURDERS
MURDERS
MURDERS
YOU are guilty of MURDER.

Take your meds...and come back and talk, Scott.

But first...take your meds.

Quote:

Have fun.

I always do.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Neither sperm nor egg will mature into a fully grown person without fertilization.

Complete bullshit, you clearly know nothing about reproductive cloning.

In a process called "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT), you can transfer genetic material from the nucleus of a donor adult cell to an egg whose nucleus, and thus its genetic material, has been removed. The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current in order to stimulate cell division. Once the cloned embryo reaches a suitable stage, it is transferred to the uterus of a female host where it continues to develop until birth.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:
Neither sperm nor egg will mature into a fully grown person without fertilization.
Complete bullshit, you clearly know nothing about reproductive cloning.

...The reconstructed egg containing the DNA from a donor cell must be treated with chemicals or electric current ...

Chemicals or electric current comprise the needed "fertilization". Without stimulation, be it from a current, a spermatocyte head, or a chemical, it's been know for many centuries, that fertilization ( or perturbation ) of the ovum's membrane is needed to "get the show on the road".

By the way, it is true that a spermatocyte ( nor an ovum )will ever mature into a grown person, strictly of it's own accord. Confused

0 Replies

Just making sure I can keep an eye on this topic.

By the way, this topic has been discussed before in "Abortion or Murder or just suits our self" (and probably a couple other threads as well).

0 Replies

aperson wrote:

Just making sure I can keep an eye on this topic.

By the way, this topic has been discussed before in "Abortion or Murder or just suits our self" (and probably a couple other threads as well).

Yes there have been several good threads on the abortion topic.

Usually the pro-abortion arguments narrow pretty quickly to semantics.

----the claim that a 'fetus' cannot be a 'child', because after all they are different words! Anyone could see that!

(Of course then, a 'teenager' could never be a 'student', nor could a 'youngster' ever be a 'kid'. And certainly an 'infant' couldn't be a 'baby', nor a 'toddler' ever considered a 'son' or 'daughter' , for the same plausible reason.)

----the claim that it is the 'mother's body' that is the issue, when medical evidence is abundant that the unborn has a body, too! This body has it's own distinctive DNA, and rapidly (before the end of the 4th week) develops it's own beating heart, often before the mother knows she is pregnant.

But they are careful never to use the term 'body' when referring to the unborn. Acceptable terms are 'protoplasm' , 'tissue', 'parasite' , etc Similarly the 'mother' is often referred to as the 'host' of the 'parasite'.

How afraid they are of words!

0 Replies

No one is afraid of words, they're just using the right terminology for
it, which is not only medically defined but also legally.

What you are referring to is a religious term which doesn't hold merits
anywhere but your church.

0 Replies

CalamityJane wrote:

No one is afraid of words, they're just using the right terminology for
it, which is not only medically defined but also legally.

What you are referring to is a religious term which doesn't hold merits
anywhere but your church.

Show medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being.

He/she has distinct DNA, not the mother's. How is it 'part of the mother's body' ? If you think the term 'DNA' is only used at my church, I've got to wonder where you've been.

He/she has a heart that beats and circulates his own blood, not his mother's, before the end of the 4th week -- before many women know they are even pregnant. (The term 'heartbeat' is used outside of my church too, I believe. I've even heard doctors use the term!)

---------------------------------------------------------

If you want to rest on the legal instead of the medical definitions, then I would hope you will be consistent when abortion laws are reinstated , and you will affirm that the unborn is a living human being because the law defines him as such. Correct?

The new law in South Dakota would be a good example. Do you agree that it is wrong to exterminate the unborn because he is a living human being in South Dakota?

How 'bout the proposed Indiana law which defines life as beginning at conception? If it passes, would you agree that the unborn is indeed alive and deserving of protection because the law says so?

If you travel to a country where abortion is not legal, is the unborn therefore a living human being in those countries because their laws have decreed him so?

Are you consistent? Or just using 'legal' definitions when it is 'convenient' ?

0 Replies

Very good, Real Life. I'm interested to see a substantive reply.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Show medical evidence that the unborn is not a living human being.

Why does it matter whether a fetus (or a blastocyst or an embryo) is a living human being?

0 Replies

Because a large part of the argument of one side is that an unborn fetus isn't a human being - that's what it "matters", in the context of this discussion.

0 Replies

Quote:

Why does it matter whether a fetus (or a blastocyst or an embryo) is a living human being?

Cripes!!!

0 Replies

snood wrote:

Because a large part of the argument of one side is that an unborn fetus isn't a human being - that's what it "matters", in the context of this discussion.

No doubt that's true, but just because a lot of people make it part of their argument doesn't necessarily mean that it should be part of their argument. Frankly, I cannot see why a fetus's "personhood" is at all relevant to a debate over abortion, but I'd like to hear from someone who does explain why it is.

0 Replies

In England abortion is illegal after 24 weeks gestation.

I don't know how it is timed but it suggests that the fetus is not a person at 23.59.59 on one day and becomes a person 1 second later. Ain't that nice. But it does suggest, to answer the question, that the law considers the fetus a person after 24 weeks.

I understand, though it seems incredible,that abortion in the US is available at any time on demand for a price. Is that true?

The whole thing is ridiculous.

There are millions of abortions completed and I have only ever met one "woman" who admitted having one. It is obvious that they are ashamed of it as well they might be.

0 Replies

spendius wrote:

In England abortion is illegal after 24 weeks gestation.

I don't know how it is timed but it suggests that the fetus is not a person at 23.59.59 on one day and becomes a person 1 second later. Ain't that nice. But it does suggest, to answer the question, that the law considers the fetus a person after 24 weeks.

It doesn't do anything of the sort. Doesn't even touch on the point...or at least, it doesn't as you have stated it here.

It merely indicates that after 24 weeks...one cannot obtain a legal abortion in England.

Quote:

I understand, though it seems incredible,that abortion in the US is available at any time on demand for a price. Is that true?

Not entirely. But what would be "incredible" about it if it were?

Quote:

The whole thing is ridiculous.

Are you referring to your post here, Spendius???

Quote:

There are millions of abortions completed and I have only ever met one "woman" who admitted having one. It is obvious that they are ashamed of it as well they might be.

Maybe they consider it none of your goddam business...rather than that they are ashamed of it.

Possible, isn't it?

0 Replies

Abortion.What do you think about it?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know