Zygote, Fetus, Clump of Cells, Alive, Dead???

I have gone through this thread and I can't find a single instance of me answering one of your questions with a question. I have answered with statements that you didn't like. But that is not the same thing as a question. Please feel free to point out where I have answered any of your questions with a question.

Perhaps the real question should be.. Baddog1 is..
1.) a troll
2.) not able to recognize the 3rd trimester
3.) acting like a troll
4.) never took high school biology
5.) related to trolls
6.) blinded by his own attempts at being good hearted
7.) deluded by trolls or religion
8.) a ward of the state
9.) a troll

You are even more trollish now... (or are you even more ignorant than you are pretending to be?) A single term? Read your list again mr smart guy.. how many terms can logically be applied by anyone with an IQ over 70?

??????? I said that people change their mind about issues, and you completely twist it around and claim that I am "not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence." Your assessment of me is illogical and totally unfounded. So why did you post it?

I never even heard of the NARAL person before reading this article (I knew about "Jane Roe"), and neither influenced my opinions. I pointed out several areas of disagreement with the article and instead of rebutting them, you launched into a diatribe about my alleged refusal to consider "facts" that go against my "beliefs.'"

The article was obviously a propaganda piece and a classic example of an appeal to emotions: rhetoric loaded with honorific/pejoratives, sensory descriptions, objects of emotion, anecdotes and recollections instead of real data.

I did my own research on the abortion issue before making up my mind, and I know the difference between facts, skewed statistics, anecdotes, opinion, misinformation, and outright lies. Facts CAN and WOULD change my mind on this or any other issue, but neither you nor the articles you referenced have presented any. I do not give off-the-cuff "statistics," emotional descriptions of former abortion practices, biased testimonials, unfounded opinions, or religious beliefs on the issue much weight when they conflict with verifiable FACTS (such as the documented fetal brain development process) and my own personal experiences with pregnancy and childbirth.

It is an OPINION, not a fact, that fertilized eggs and embryos are human beings and should have legal rights. It is an OPINION that it is OK to abort an embryo/fetus that resulted from rape, but not one that was the result of seduction, bad judgment, or birth control failure. It is an OPINION that society, government, or any individual should be able to interfere with a woman's right to control her own body and what happens to it.

In my OPINION, it is just a wrong to demand that women carry accidentally conceived and unwanted embryos to term as it would be to use girls as brood mares, deliberately impregnated to produce babies for women unable to have their own. In my OPINION, using waste embryos from fertility clinics (with the parents' consent) for research that might save lives makes a lot more more sense than flushing them down the drain. In my OPINION, an embryo/fetus is the property of the woman in whose body it is growing, and no one else has any right to tell her what she can or can't do with it until it can be shown to be a sentient human being.

My guess is that your post was just an attempt divert attention from your failure to answer the questions I posed to you. Here they are again, in case you missed them in your eagerness to attack my character instead of my arguments:

Why do you think that abortion is OK in the case of rape, but not in the case of birth control failure?

Just exactly who do you think "means it to be" when an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Why shouldn't we be able to alter our own fate, and that of others (as we do with every other action that affects the lives of others)?

Why should other people be greatly inconvenienced by your personal objections to them making decisions that have nothing to do with you?

Why shouldn't convenience be a valid reason for early abortion? Who is hurt by the decision?[/color]

1) What label should be utilized for the "beings" in these photo's?

2) Are these "beings" alive?

3) Dead?

4) Are these "beings" the property of the pregnant mother?

5) ... of the father?

6) ... of the state/country?

7) Must the person(s) performing surgery on these "beings" be licensed surgeons?

8) Why?

9) Should these "beings" have any rights (basic, human, legal and/or otherwise)?

Well,
I see you decided to point out benign questions there Bad. I really couldn't expect much else from you obviously.

parados wrote:

Well,
I see you decided to point out benign questions there Bad. I really couldn't expect much else from you obviously.

Thanks for following my lead. Imitation is the finest form of flattery! :wink:

baddog1 wrote:

parados wrote:

Well,
I see you decided to point out benign questions there Bad. I really couldn't expect much else from you obviously.

Thanks for following my lead. Imitation is the finest form of flattery! :wink:

The only way I can be such a big loser is to follow your lead..

:wink:

After all.. ALWAYS doesn't really mean always..

I hope you "always" have a good Thanksgiving too Bad. :wink:

real life wrote:

The unborn has a body of his/her own.

From day 1, the unborn's DNA is distinct from the mother's.

Biologically , it cannot be accurately said that the unborn is 'part of the mother's body'.

So, a fetus, until able to live without the mother is in fact, a parasite.

parasitism

<biology, microbiology> A type of symbiosis where two (or more) organisms from different species [/u][/i]live in close proximity to one another, in which one member depends on another for its nutrients, protection, and/or other life functions.

parasitism
One entry found for parasitism.
Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds; [/u][/i]especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

So, a fetus, until able to live without the mother is in fact, a parasite.

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

My assessment of you is entirely logical based on your clear position as to the matter of a woman's rights as to her body and whatever may or may not be growing inside it. The foundation of your chosen position is also crystal clear on this very post! And you are still grossly minimizing your position on "Jane Roe"! The Roe vs. Wade case is the foundation for all of women's rights! For "Jane Roe" to rescind her position is monumental to that case.
…
Your guess is wrong. I did not attack your character - I questioned your position! Big difference!

Your statement above says it all about you and this subject. The "people" (person) you're referring to is not some unrelated woman off the street - now is she? Minimizing the role this person played in your entire personal agenda speaks volumes about "digging your heels in" on an issue. The facts are - there is no amount of evidence, factual information, testimony and/or basically anything in the world that you will consider - if it goes against your chosen belief. It's a pretty common psychological phenomenon really. I am unclear though as to why you would engage in discussion about it. You are not open to the possibility of altering your position on this subject - no matter the evidence. So why discuss it? What's your pay-off?

Everything in my post is "IMO"! That in itself is a fact!

Just as the original Roe Vs. Wade case was an appeal to "emotions, rhetoric…" - that eventually became law!!!

You're still not getting it! Because all of this is based on each other's (emotional) opinion - there is no consideration to what is "fact" and what is not! What I consider to be "fact", you will dispute and vice-versa! Let me provide an example: I've posted links to photographs of "fetuses" showing their clearly developed human arms & hands poking out and grasping a surgeon's finger. It is my opinion that the photo's have not been altered. (Although I cannot prove this.) There are those who hold the staunch position that the "fetuses" shown are not "technically alive", certainly not human, nor do they possess any rights whatsoever (basic-human rights or otherwise). Most of those same pro-choice folks will not respond to the thread(s) associated with the images; or they respond by personally attacking me for having the audacity to post the images. So you tell me - fac t, opinion, or what?

Rape is an involuntary, vile, often violent act that most certainly adversely affects the woman and IMO - will also emotionally affect the child if born. Birth control failure still involves choice. All of us possess the knowledge that there is risk of pregnancy when using any type of birth control and still choosing to have intercourse. This risk varies with the assorted options of birth control and we have free will to choose what type (if any) to utilize. It is therefore MHO; that if/when we choose to utilize a form of birth control (accepting the risk), and choose to have intercourse - that we should be completely responsible for "whatever" occurs! (Included in the "whatever" is of course - the chance of beginning a new life.)

I am unsure what "means it to be" is referring to. As to altering our fate - that is purely my opinion, based on my own beliefs! My related-belief is that we may alter our own fate however we choose (and reap the consequences - good or bad). However - I also believe that altering the fate of another living being for reasons of "basic" (in)convenience is humanely wrong - IMHO!!!

The life that is involuntarily ended is hurt by your second question. (And in my life experience - those who chose to have abortions, have suffered (on various emotional levels and at various times) by questioning, wondering, etc.

Certainly it would be affected if the mother kept it and saw the face of the rapist every time she looked at it.

So the "right" of adults to enjoy sex trumps everything else? Including the life of the child they created (whether intentionally or unintentionally)?

The mother would only have to "obligated" for nine months, after which time she could put the child up for adoption. There are scores of people out there who would love to adopt a child. Many are on waiting lists.

Quote:

Smokers know the risks but are treated for cancer even though their behavior caused it. People's lifestyles and choices put them at risk for a number of diseases and preventable accidents, but medical treatment is not withheld even when the victim's condition was the direct result of bad judgment. I don't see why accidental pregnancy should be any different.

Smokers are not terminating the life of another -- just possibly their own.

Quote:

If altering the fate of another being for our own convenience is wrong, what about deaths that are "meant to be" but we use extreme measures to keep the person alive, despite their wishes and no matter how much they may be suffering, just because it makes US feel better?

I don't know that it's "despite their wishes." There are living wills in which they can specify whether or not they want life support if such a situation should ever occur.

Terry, I was referring to the use of the word, "parasite," as a biological or medical term. In those situations, a parasite would commonly be an organism of one species, living on or within an organism of another species -- which could potentially cause damage to the "host" by draining it of nourishment.

I have never heard the word "parasite" or "host" used when referring to a pregnant female and her offspring.

Parasitism is, like most other animal associations defined in terms of two different species, who form a regular association, although this seems sensible, and it does exclude consideration of the mammalian foetus as being parasitic upon its mother, there are some very interesting immunological parallels between the mechanisms the foetus uses to avoid being rejected by the immune response of its mother and the ways in which the parasites of mammals seek to avoid their hosts immune response. Also in a number of deep-sea fish, the males are tiny and become parasitic on the females, nothing is known about the physiological basis of this

Stray Cat and real life, the definition of "parasite" from Merriam-Webster is:

Quote:

1 : a person who exploits the hospitality of the rich and earns welcome by flattery
2 : an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism[/u][/i]
3 : something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return

It says nothing about being of different species, in fact, #1 refers to human beings who are all (debatably) of the same species. Certainly you can find alternate definitions if you consult enough references. But in the common usage, a fetus most definitely qualifies as a parasite.

parasitism
One entry found for parasitism.
Main Entry: par·a·sit·ism
Pronunciation: 'per-&-s&-"ti-z&m, -"sI-, "pa-r&-
Function: noun
1 : the behavior of a parasite
2 : an intimate association between organisms of two or more kinds[/i][/u]; especially : one in which a parasite obtains benefits from a host which it usually injures

Like you said...... the foetus definitely damages the mother and drains her of nourishment.

Quote:

Like you said...... the foetus definitely damages the mother and drains her of nourishment.

The fetus takes its nourishment from the mother. It's not "draining" the mother of the nourishment she needs in order to be healthy, or to the point where she will become diseased.