Abortion

[Bob the Builder]

Once again you suffer from premature assumption. What I don't understand is a man like yourself who is all in favor of retroactive birth control being upset about abortion.

WHAT on earth are you talking about now?!?!?!?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

WHAT on earth are you talking about now?!?!?!?

It was in response to your post #983 "I take it you support abortion? Fine, then if a woman is to be allowed to kill her child in the first two trimesters, why not in the 50th? Why not in the 100th? HELL, let's just let mothers kill their children any time they want to!"

Do you remember that post? Once again you are the victim of premature assumption: I think abortions are a real bad idea.

You are the one arguing that everyone should carry guns, guns are used to kill people, what's wrong with abortion? Killing is killing, abortion or retroactive birth control by someone with a gun--why does it bother you?

 

[Bob the Builder]

It was in response to your post #983 "I take it you support abortion? Fine, then if a woman is to be allowed to kill her child in the first two trimesters, why not in the 50th? Why not in the 100th? HELL, let's just let mothers kill their children any time they want to!"

Do you remember that post? Once again you are the victim of premature assumption: I think abortions are a real bad idea.

You are the one arguing that everyone should carry guns, guns are used to kill people, what's wrong with abortion? Killing is killing, abortion or retroactive birth control by someone with a gun--why does it bother you?

It's not "premature assumption", which is why it was phrased as a QUESTION.

You also failed to pay attention to my previous post where I carefully explained how the mere presense of a firearm is used to PREVENT a crime from being committed in the first place. Guns CAN be used to kill people. They can also be used to simply WOUND rather than kill people, and in the vast majority of incidents, the mere presence of the firearm PRECLUDES it's actual use because once the perp sees that their intended victim is armed they run away like their head is on fire and their a$$ is catching.

Elective abortion, and the operative word here is "elective" is MURDER, defending oneself is not. Murder does bother me, someone using a firearm to defend themselves or someone else, against a violent perp, and sending them straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect $200.00 does not.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

It's not "premature assumption", which is why it was phrased as a QUESTION.

It was a rhetorical question at best since you went on immediately without waiting for an answer to castigate me. If you ask a question perhaps you should wait for an answer. Or read my posts--in which I have repeatedly said that I think abortions are a bad idea.

 

[palerider]

The Bible DOESN'T say that homosexuals should be put to death, the word "homosexual" wasn't even coined until about 1897.

I am not going to have a biblical argument over abortion but as to homosexuals being put to death, refer to Leviticus 20:13.

 

[palerider]

Is "simple" biology any different than "actual" biology?

Yes, there is. Simple biology disregards a great deal of fact so that the unlearned can begin to grasp the concept. For example, in simple biology, the earliest stage of development is a fertilized egg. This allows one who lacks the language or indepth knowledge to start to understand what is going on. In actual biology, however, there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Upon the completion of fertilization, the egg no longer exists as such and has been replaced by a living human being.


"Often,this morula is inaccurately referred to as a ‘fertilized egg’ because the blastomeres remain inside the female parent’s oocyte outer cell membrane. That is an incorrect characterization, because the 23 -chromosome oocyte no longer exists; all the cells within the morula have the unique genome—46 chromosomes and a complement of mitochondrial DNA —of the newly conceived individual life." Moore and Persaud, The Developing Human, 6th ed., (p. 43)

Ok, I didn't want to have to do this, but since you insist; let's carefully look at your definitions. Mosby defines pregnancy as the "gestitational process, comprising the growth and development......". As I have already stated clearly, unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, it cannot grow or develop beyond what it's own nutritional contents will allow.

Since the child begins to grow days before implantation, the woman is pregnant. If the egg can not implant, it will not continue to grow and the pregnancy, which already exists, will be terminated. Your knowledge is apparently too superficiial to allow you to understand that you are simply wrong. When respected medical dictionaries state explicitly that pregnancy begins with fertilization, it is laughable for one who admits a limited knowledge of biology to argue with them.

If the egg does not attach, it cannot grow, therefore she is not pregnant, as further evinced by your own definition since without such attachment, the embryonic and fetal periods will not occur

The child is an embryo when it reaches the uterus. The embryonic process is alread occuring. A hostile enviornment terminates the embryonic process by causing the death of the child. ie abortion.

It might interest you to review Tabers, as it's definition of "pregnancy" is "The condition of carrying a developing embryo in the uterus", which can only occur once the egg is attached to the uterine wall.

Nobody is denying any "facts", you are simply selectively using those facts to support your own position, regardless of the facts that your definition of "pregnancy" as occurring at the moment of fertilization is flawed. It isn't a matter of "perception" pale, it's a medical fact that without attachment, the egg simply cannot grow and develop into a child.

If selectively you mean I am appropriately applying them to the issue, then yes, I suppose I am. You, however are selectively disregarding them in order to hold on to your fantasy and retain the fantasy that you do not support abortion.

As to you declaring that the definitions provided by Mosby’s Medical dictionary, Stedman’s Medical Dictionary, American College of Physicians Complete Home Medical Guide, American Medical Association Complete Medical Encyclopedia, Barron's Medical Guide: Dictionary of Medical Terms for the non-medical person, Harvard Medical School Family Health Guide, etc are flawed, and don't reflect medical fact, I am literally laughing great mule laughs in your face. Exactly who the hell are you that you can unilatarally declare that the most respected medical dictionaries and encyclopedias in the world are not reflecting medical fact?

As I said before, we'll simply have to agree to disagree on that point, as we have not established that your definition is in fact the "truth".

First, it is not "my" definition. It is the definition as found in highly respectable medical dictionaries and encyclopedias. What we have established beyond any doubt, is that you, like most pro chocers will readily disregard and question materials that you know nothing about in order to maintain your fantasy.

You are of course fully entitled to hold that belief as your truth. My truth is the one that holds in science,

Laughable as those medical dictionaries define the terms for science and they state explicitly that pregnancy begins upon the completion of fertilization.

that being that unless or until the egg is attached to the uterine wall, and receiving nourishment from the mother, it is NOT a "child". On the other hand, once it IS attached, and IS receiving nourishment, then it IS a "child".

The child comes into existence at the time fertilization is complete. Here are some references from medical school textbooks used to teach the subjects of embryology, fetology, developmental biology, and OB/Gyn. They represent actual science. Which science is it that you are promoting?

However, I will point out that statements such as "denying the truth does not alter the truth" without first establishing what the truth is, {/quote]

Since I have provided no less than six medical dictionaries and encyclopedias, two of which are the most respected in the world that state explicitly that pregnancy begins upon the completion of fertilization, I have, in fact, established what the truth is. Your insistent denial of those dictionaries also establishes your intellectual credintials.

Simply put, what you are advocating, but attempting to compel a woman to BECOME pregnant as a result of rape can only be described as barbaric, and is the same sort of evil that King William inflicted upon the Irish by invoking "Droit de seigneur" whereby the Lord of the land was "entitled" to take the virginity of the women on his lands, against their will, which is RAPE.

I never said anything else. I asked for a rational argument in favor of killing a child for the crime of its father. It shortly became unsurprisingly evident that you couldn't do that so you invent this whole fantasy in which a woman has a living child within her body but is not pregnant in an attempt to justify killing a child for the crime of its father.

 

[palerider]

while you keep saying it's all about to change any second now.

Actually, I have never said any such thing, but dishonesty being your stock in trade, I am not surprised that you would make the claim.

 

[palerider]

And you have just made my point for me, if the egg does not attach to her body, it has not been accepted, and therefore she is not pregnant. Thank you.

Sorry guy, but you ignore the fact that the woman's body accepts the child long before it ever reaches the uterus. Her body acknowledges and accepts the child by not killing it immediately via her immune system. The pill overrides the woman's body and creates a hostile enviroment in the uterus that causes the death of the child. A hostile environment that would not have existed had she not taken the pill.

As I have stated, your knowledge of this subject is to superficial for you to grasp how wrong you are and your eager willingness to completly disregard the most respected medical dictionaries in the world as not relating medical fact because it proves your theory wrong is just laughable.

You still fail to acknowledge the fact that UNTIL THE EGG IS ATTACHED, IT CANNOT GROW, THEREFORE IT IS NOT AN "INDIVIDUAL". Now, what that clear enough for you? If you have evidence that an egg can grow in the womans body WITHOUT being attached to her body, by all means produce it, otherwise you're simply engaging in argumentum ad nauseum.

Sorry guy, but again, I don't know how you could possibly be more wrong. Your arguments have taken on a childlike quality that frankly is pitiful. You are clearly just making up whatever you need to support your argument as you go. The fact is that the child is an individual human being from the time it is concieved.

Now you're equivocating, and not very well I might add. Is it, or is it not a fact that without nourishment an egg/seed cannot grow and develop? At this point in their biology the same principles apply, and attempting to obfuscate the point does your stance no good.

Is it, or is it not a fact that without nourishment, you will die? Creating a hostile environment that causes your death does not mean that you are not an individual. All abortion is the creation of a hostile environment that brings on the death of the child.

As to "citing" biological principles, once more, I am laughing in your face. You have admitted a limited knowledge of biology and yet, you see fit to dictate biological principles to no less than Steadman's.

It's not a child unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall, period.

Sorry guy, but you are wrong.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed... The zygote is a unicellular human being... Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5, 55. EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY

Are you now going to argue that a human being isn't a child?

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, vii.

I suppose now you are going to claim that medical students are recieving bogus information in medical school. Perhaps you should open a medical school and teach so they can get the straight scoop.

"Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm (spermatozoo developmentn) unites with a female gamete or oocyte (ovum) to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marked the beginning of each of us as a unique individual. "Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2003. pp. 16, 2.

It doesn't matter how many times you repeat your same flawed arguement, the facts are still the facts, and as you have repeatedly failed to demonstrate how a fertilized human egg can grow and develop without nutrition from the mother, I will consider your consistant refusal to address that question directly to be your acknowledgement that your position is in fact simply biologically flawed.

I suppose it doesn't matter how many medical school textbooks state explicitly that a child comes into existence at fertilization either does it. You are so wrapped up in your word game that I doubt that at this point, you are even capable of seing the facts.

I have never said that the child can continue to live if it is unable to implant. I have said that the child is alive and a human being upon the completion of fertilization. That is a fact and I have proven it abundantly. I have also said that taking a pill deliberately creates a hostile environment in the uterus that causes the death of the child if, in fact, fertilization has taken place. That is also a fact. If one deliberately creates an enviornment that is so hostile to another individual that it causes the death of that individual, one has, in fact, killed that individual.

The fact that the child is alive and a human being is unquestionable. The fact that it is the pill that causes its death is also unquestionable. And that you are willing to disregard all manner of fact and substitute in in your mind with a fantasy derived from a word game is also unquestionable.

No, the facts you presented from Mosby and others are dependent upon other actions occurring at the same time.

Odd. They don't say that. Perhaps you should write them and straighten them out.

Even Mosby's definition requires, as I pointed out, that the egg first be attached to the mother.

Why lie when the lie can be pointed out so easily. Your arguments are becoming more and more chidlike.

Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006

Pregnancy: The gestational process, comprising the growth and development within a woman of a new individual from conception through the embryonic and fetal periods to birth.

Since you are in word game mode, lets take a look at Mosby's definition of conception.

Mosby’s Medical dictionary, 7th Edition, (c) 2006

Conception - 1. The beginning of pregnancy, usually taken to be the instant that a spermatozoon enters an ovum and forms a viable zygote. 2. the act or process of fertilization

Without that attachment gestation cannot occur.

Are you really this dense, or are you being deliberately obtuse? If it is ignorance, that is excusable, but if you are deliberately running from or twisting the facts, that, my friend, is whoring your intellect.

As Mosby's clearly states, the gestational process begins at conception. The newly formed child sends it chemical signal to tell mom "I'm here" and mom responds by not sending her immune system to kill it. Gestation has begun. Now, if mom takes a pill that creates a hostile environment within the uterus that the child will be arriving at in a few days, gestation CAN NOT CONTINUE and the child will die because mom has taken a pill that brings on the abortion of her child.

 

[palerider]

I'm thinkin' it has something to do with the whole being inside of another persons body and not being able to survive without that persons permission to provide support.

Sorry top gun, but the existence and protection of dependent conjoined twins disproves your theory that one individual can't legally depend upon another for support. A dependent conjoined twin is as depdendent upon his or her sibling for life as any unborn child is upon its mother and yet, that dependent twin's right to live is protected except in situations where it represents an imminent threat to its sibling's life.

 

[palerider]

I was merely addressing the issue of "abortion related to rape" and trying to point out the fact that given the time necessary for the sperm to even reach the egg, much less to join with it is generally so far outside the window as far as the aforementioned medical care as to be moot since it can take hours, or even days before the sperm can locate and join with the egg.

Lets take a look at time:

http://www1.iwon.com/home/parenting/parenting_article/0,18900,|baby|13246,00.html

clip: Some of the sperm swim straight up into the fallopian tubes through the cervix and uterus - and some of them are so fast, that sperms have been found in the tubes in as little as a few minutes after ejaculation.

http://www1.iwon.com/home/parenting/parenting_article/0,18900,|baby|13246,00.html

clip: The majority of sperm that reach the cervical mucus do so within a matter of just a few minutes. They then continue on into the uterus and up into the fallopian tubes. This is a long and arduous journey and has been likened in terms of relative length to a human swimming the English Channel back and forth seven times. Amazingly, the sperm can complete this journey in just a few minutes.

http://www.rxlist.com/conception_slideshow_from_egg_to_embryo/article.htm

clip: Fast-swimming sperm can reach the egg in a half an hour, while other may take days.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/ObGyn-Pregnancy-issues-1007/pregnancy-199.htm

clip: The sperm can reach the egg and fertilize the egg within minutes of intercourse.

As you can see, sperm can reach the egg in as little as half an hour. Any drug administerd longer than half an hour after sex, if you hold an anti abortion position, is analogous to firing a weapon into a building and hoping that no one is there.

Pale completely blew by these facts and continued on in his rant about "the child being killed for the sins of the father" when I had already specified that the possibility of the egg and sperm having actually integrated are so remote as to be a non-issue.

Pale neither blew by, nor ignored anything. Pale grasps the biological facts and understands that if half an hour has passed, there is the possibility that fertilization has already happened. The possibility is not nearly so remote as you seem to believe and certainly is not a non issue. Even though you generally hold an anti abortion stance, you clearly have been heavily influenced in this area by pro choice propaganda. That isn't anything to be embarassed about as a great deal of money and effort has been spent to dissiminate the information but holding to propaganda when the facts say otherwise is something to be embarassed about.

Another thing that you don't seem to be considering is the length of time that it takes for the pill to begin working. It isn't immediately. My bet is that the pill would take at least an hour and probably longer considering its nature to begin working. Therefore, if the woman were given the pill immediately after sex, there exists the possibility that she would already be pregnant by the time the pill began working.

As far as the issue of when "life" begins, I have already clearly stated that unless or until the egg attaches itself to the uterine wall and begins drawing nourishment from the mother, it cannot be considered to be a "human", unless of course you consider cancer cells to be "human" too.

Yeah, you have stated it. And you keep stating it even though a boatload of credible information has been presented to you that states explicitly that you are wrong. It is completely irrational to continue to espouse a belief when you have been presented with an overwhelming body of evidence that says that you are mistaken.

Bringing cancer cells into the issue is a complete non sequiter. Cancer has nothing to do with abortion unless it is a health issue for the mother. And cancer cells are human if they are found in humans. There is a difference, however between the term human and the term a human. All your cells are human but you are A human being. That is one of the poorest of the pro choice word games.

 

[palerider]

You may not be the best person to try to make a case with Christian dogma, eh?

As I said, I don't make religious arguments as they would have no more validity or rationality than your own. I prefer to stick to fact.

 

[top gun]

Actually, I have never said any such thing, but dishonesty being your stock in trade, I am not surprised that you would make the claim.

Sure ya have. That's your whole shtick. That's why you try to string along the Domestic Terrorists with false hope thinking if they just kill enough doctors they have a chance to force women back to the stone age.

Ain't ever gonna happen... proceed to waste your time & money.

Enforce the FACE ACT... tell Domestic Terrorists... not in America scumbags!

 

[palerider]

Sure ya have. That's your whole shtick. That's why you try to string along the Domestic Terrorists with false hope thinking if they just kill enough doctors they have a chance to force women back to the stone age.

Feel free to bring the quote by me forward and prove that you aren't a bald faced liar. I'll never understand why people like you lie when the lie is so easily proved. We both know that you won't be able to bring any such quote from me and there you are, a proven liar. Why make claims you can't support in the first place?

 

[top gun]

Sorry top gun, but the existence and protection of dependent conjoined twins disproves your theory that one individual can't legally depend upon another for support. A dependent conjoined twin is as depdendent upon his or her sibling for life as any unborn child is upon its mother and yet, that dependent twin's right to live is protected except in situations where it represents an imminent threat to its sibling's life.

There have been many cases over time, and all over the world where conjoined twins were separated and one dies. It may not have been the specified "intent" but it does happen.

Add to that you don't have one of the parties themselves asking to have the other removed as is the case with women & abortion.

Add to that both conjoined twins are not in a fetus state but are already born.

Add to that the twins are both of an equal state & standing. twin/twin is not woman/fetus.


Anti-Woman Domestic Terrorists... lock 'em up & throw away the key... enforce the FACE ACT!

 

[top gun]

Feel free to bring the quote by me forward and prove that you aren't a bald faced liar. I'll never understand why people like you lie when the lie is so easily proved. We both know that you won't be able to bring any such quote from me and there you are, a proven liar. Why make claims you can't support in the first place?

Poetic license you fool... of course you didn't actually use the words any second. I was saying that's what you project

You're whole BS argument is that a woman's right to choose will be taken away. You continually disregard 4 decades of High Court precedent saying other things have been overturned.

Maybe you mean after a hundred years a woman's right to choose will be overturned! I don't care... either way you're equally incorrect.

But I do care that people like you are only encouraging doctor killers & clinic bombers. Clinic creepers are dangerous and must be stopped.

Everybody should look at this one... it could not be made more clear who the terrorists are!

Stand up to Domestic Terrororists... turn in a Anti-Choice women's clinic Terrorist!