Abortion

[palerider]

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.

Only when the dependent twin is an imminent threat to its sibling. And I have never argued that a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy if her life is in danger.

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.

Irrelavent as the dependent conjoined twin can't be removed no matter what the other wishes if there is no threat to the twin who posesses the vital organ or system. And that is for life, not a mere 9 months.

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

The argument for being born is that once born, the child is no longer dependent upon its mother's body for life.

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

Both are human beings as is the case with a mother and her unborn child.

 

[palerider]

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

No quote huh? Unsurprising as I already knew that you were a liar.

 

[top gun]

Only when the dependent twin is an imminent threat to its sibling. And I have never argued that a woman doesn't have the right to terminate a pregnancy if her life is in danger.

Again not true. I didn't say that the separation was "planned" to cause the death of one of the twins. I said twins have been separated where one has quickly died. They are just as dead either way.

A woman can say she just tripped going down the stairs... the abortion is just as complete.

Irrelavent as the dependent conjoined twin can't be removed no matter what the other wishes if there is no threat to the twin who posesses the vital organ or system. And that is for life, not a mere 9 months.

I'm simply stating that conjoined twins is not the same scenario as with a woman being legally forced (which no one has every been able to do anyway by the way) to carry something so underdeveloped inside her own personal body that can't survive on the outside without her as life support.

Completely different.

The argument for being born is that once born, the child is no longer dependent upon its mother's body for life.

Once born a baby is not reliant on or living off of one specific SPECIFIC person.

Both are human beings as is the case with a mother and her unborn child.

That matter that has long ago been decided. There is a definite legal distinction from something having life human or otherwise (in other words hasn't stopped aging) and a PERSON.


See Domestic Terrorists out front of a woman's medical clinic call the local authorities and your states Attorney General. Tell them to enforce the FACE ACT and stop the terrorism.

 

[top gun]

No quote huh? Unsurprising as I already knew that you were a liar.

Well since I said now you never actually used the word "second" I guess not. But the impression you give is this is going to happen soon. You love to cite various reasons that claim to show this ball of BS is really moving forward quickly.

Since you seem to think I've taken too much license...

perhaps you'll tell us the date that you do see woman being forced back to the dark ages and clear that all up for us. I'll make note and be sure to quote that.

Makes no never mind to me because... IT AIN'T HAPPENING!


Live under the law call your Congressman tell them I want to see women's clinic Domestic Terrorists arrested under the FACE ACT...

and never vote for Republicants.

 

[Bob the Builder]

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.

Ah, so now the argument becomes "there's no such thing as a fertilized egg"? You're SPLITTING HAIRS! Biology is biology.

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.

There's nothing superficial or inadequate about my knowledge of the subject, you're simply equivocating in order to avoid having to address the very salient fact that UNTIL it attach's it does not have the ability to grow beyond a certain point, and WILL die. Regardless of the mechanism that prevents the egg from attaching, until such time as it does, it is NOT human. Oh, and you've already condemned yourself by the selective use of definitions that suit YOUR notions, but ignoring those that oppose it.

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.

Again, thank you for making my point for me. Until the embryo is attached to the uterine wall (being carried), the mother is NOT PREGNANT! You just blew all of your own previous arguments out of the water.

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.

No, you are selectively applying those definitions that support your position without considering all of the contravening data. It's called "A LIE OF OMISSION".

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.

No, I'm saying that YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ THEM, AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS TO THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS!

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.

And more lies. As you correctly pointed out, Tabers supports my statement that the woman isn't even pregnant until the fertilized egg attach's itself to the uterine wall, and if she's not pregnant, it's not a child. The fact that you're not sharp enough to be able to address issues one at a time, through the time line, but rather insist on your barbaric, hedonistic, and vulgar stance of FORCING the rape impregnation of an innocent woman is revolting on a level that is incomprehensible.

 

[palerider]

Again not true. I didn't say that the separation was "planned" to cause the death of one of the twins. I said twins have been separated where one has quickly died. They are just as dead either way.

That is a risk of any surgury. In the case of twins where they share a vital organ or system where one is sure to die if they are separated, they may not be separated unless the dependent twin is an imminent threat to its sibling. For example, a shared heart that isn't strong enough to support both.

I'm simply stating that conjoined twins is not the same scenario as with a woman being legally forced (which no one has every been able to do anyway by the way) to carry something so underdeveloped inside her own personal body that can't survive on the outside without her as life support.

The legal precedent is the same. ie one individual not having the right to deny bodily resources to another who is dependent upon them. Inside/outside is nothing more than a geographical reference and irrelavent to the issue.

Once born a baby is not reliant on or living off of one specific SPECIFIC person.

Again, the conjoined twin is depdendent upon one specific person.

That matter that has long ago been decided. There is a definite legal distinction from something having life human or otherwise (in other words hasn't stopped aging) and a PERSON.

Legal distinctions don't chage the facts. Once blacks were legally not human beings because of a legal distinction. They never stopped being human beings, they only had thier most basic human rights denied based on an eroneous legal distinction.

 

[palerider]

Well since I said now you never actually used the word "second" I guess not. But the impression you give is this is going to happen soon. You love to cite various reasons that claim to show this ball of BS is really moving forward quickly.

Your interpretaion only indicates that you don't fully comprehend what you read. I have also never said that the cases are moving forward quickly. In fact, I have stated that it takes a very long time to move a case through the lower courts to the superior courts to the supreme court.

perhaps you'll tell us the date that you do see woman being forced back to the dark ages and clear that all up for us. I'll make note and be sure to quote that.

The first generation of suits brought on by states adding personhood clauses to their abortion laws are still at the state level. I suspect 3 to 5 years before a case comes to the court that will force the court to look at the eroneous assumption made by the roe court that unborns are something other than human beings. As the court said, if their assumption is proven wrong, roe must be struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[palerider]

Ah, so now the argument becomes "there's no such thing as a fertilized egg"? You're SPLITTING HAIRS! Biology is biology.

Of course it is, but overloading the unlearned with information they can't grasp is pointless. And there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Upon the conpletion of fertilization, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg.

There's nothing superficial or inadequate about my knowledge of the subject, you're simply equivocating in order to avoid having to address the very salient fact that UNTIL it attach's it does not have the ability to grow beyond a certain point, and WILL die. Regardless of the mechanism that prevents the egg from attaching, until such time as it does, it is NOT human. Oh, and you've already condemned yourself by the selective use of definitions that suit YOUR notions, but ignoring those that oppose it.

Unless you have a source of nourishment, you will die. What do you believe that proves other than that you are a living human being? If a living human being is denied a source of nourishment as the direct result of an action taken by another human being and dies, the first has been killed.

Again, thank you for making my point for me. Until the embryo is attached to the uterine wall (being carried), the mother is NOT PREGNANT! You just blew all of your own previous arguments out of the water.

Sorry, but she is and I have provided no less than 6 respected medical research resources that state explicitly that the woman is pregnant upon the completion of fertilization; days before implantation. Simply stating that a host of medical dictionaries are wrong is just plain dumb.

No, you are selectively applying those definitions that support your position without considering all of the contravening data. It's called "A LIE OF OMISSION".

Sorry bob, but you are clearly over your head here. I omitted nothing from the definitions I provided and they state exactly what I claimed they state. The woman is pregnant from the time of conception.

No, I'm saying that YOU DON'T KNOW HOW TO READ THEM, AND APPLY THE APPROPRIATE DEFINITIONS TO THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS!

The biological conditions are identical for rape victims as they are for women who are seeking to get pregnant. You are having a knee jerk emotional reaction devoid of rational thought.

And more lies. As you correctly pointed out, Tabers supports my statement that the woman isn't even pregnant until the fertilized egg attach's itself to the uterine wall, and if she's not pregnant, it's not a child.

Funny. You grab one dictionary, and not even one of the most prominent that supports your view while disregarding the most respected dictionaries that state you are wrong.

Further, even tabers doesn't say that it isn't a child until it is attached. It is what it is from the time it comes into existence. It doesn't "turn into" something new simply because it gets a source of nourishment.

Tell me O' great guru of developmental biology, exactly what physical change does the child undergo that changes it from a non human into a human by virtue of imbedding itself into the uterine wall? In all my years of biological education and biochemical research, I have never heard that metamorphosis was part of the human developmental cycle. Describe this heretofore unknown metamorphosis to me and don't spare the details. I am sure that I have enough education to understand them.

 

[Bob the Builder]

Of course it is, but overloading the unlearned with information they can't grasp is pointless. And there is no such thing as a fertilized egg. Upon the conpletion of fertilization, a zygote exists, not a fertilized egg.

And what is a "zygote" except for a fertilized egg? You're playing at childish symantics games to try to impress people...it's not working.

As for the rest, it's still nothing but argumentum ad nauseum. You've refuted nothing, and instead rely on saying the same things, over and over and over again, but doing so doesn't make them any more valid now than they were they first time.

Your own sources have refuted your assertions, and now you're equivocating to try to cover your embarassment. As for your alleged education, from what I've gathered thus far you are a primary example of one who has been educated well beyond their intellect and therefore your reach FAR exceeds your grasp.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

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

I know what the Bible says, my question to you was "Do you support ALL the death sentences mandated by the Mosaic Law or just for gay people and abortionists?"

 

[palerider]

And what is a "zygote" except for a fertilized egg? You're playing at childish symantics games to try to impress people...it's not working.

A zygote is an individual 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)

Accurate scientific information is childish symanics to you? As I said, actual biology is over the heads of many so simple biology must suffice.

As for the rest, it's still nothing but argumentum ad nauseum. You've refuted nothing, and instead rely on saying the same things, over and over and over again, but doing so doesn't make them any more valid now than they were they first time.

Your entire childish argument has been refuted by no less than 6 respected medical dictionaries and encyclopedias. And I admit to repeating the facts over and over as I have nothing more to repeat. They are what they are and if you are unable, or more likely, unwilling to accept them, again, it is a reflection on your intellect, not mine.

Your own sources have refuted your assertions, and now you're equivocating to try to cover your embarassment. As for your alleged education, from what I've gathered thus far you are a primary example of one who has been educated well beyond their intellect and therefore your reach FAR exceeds your grasp.

Lying doesn't make it so and the only embarassment here should belong to you. Once more, I am literally laughing in your face. Clearly you can't face the truth of your pro choice position and will drag your intellect through whatever pig sty or gutter you deem necessary to hold to your fantasy. I hope you enjoy whatever bitter comfort you get from it.

 

[palerider]

I know what the Bible says, my question to you was "Do you support ALL the death sentences mandated by the Mosaic Law or just for gay people and abortionists?"

I don't make religious arguments as they are pointless. I merely pointed out that your suggestion that you "proved" anything using the Bible was no more, and no less than blatant hypocricy on your part as I am sure that you don't subscribe to putting homosexuals to death.

 

[top gun]

The legal precedent is the same. ie one individual not having the right to deny bodily resources to another who is dependent upon them. Inside/outside is nothing more than a geographical reference and irrelavent to the issue.

The overriding legal precedent is that abortion has been legal for 4 decades. That's the legal precedent.

In law their can be all kinds of variances on all kinds of similar things because of unique circumstances. For instance a person can be charged with double homicide because he kills a woman and her unborn child. The legal theory is that the woman didn't want to die nor did she want her fetus to die and would have allowed it to continue to develop and eventually BE BORN.

Hence a double crime can be said to have been committed.

This is not the case in abortion. Here we are talking about a woman not wanting her body used by something else against her will. That particular thing, be it living cells, at that stage does not carry significant legal weight to override the women's decision to abort her pregnancy. And in nature this is the case as well. Miscarriages happen all the time.

If a woman is put on total bed rest and told if she gets out of bed she will lose her baby. And that woman gets up and goes jogging and looses the baby... that is not crime. And neither is a legal abortion.

I understand you are upset by the 4 decade High Court precedent that's growing longer every single day. But it's not going to change...

I'll check back in in another few months like I have for 3 years now just to once again say... see I told ya so, the reason your pants are so wet, you've just been pissing' in the wind.

The Face Act protects Americans from Domestic Terrorists call your Congressman an tell them to lock up the clinic creepers before another doctor or patient gets murdered!

 

[Bob the Builder]

Pale, you're beyond hope. You're one of the very ones that gives our side of the issue a bad name because you're not even willing to work with those who agree with you on 95% of the issue. In other words, you're nothing but a disingenuous ideologue who will twist, turn, and contort anything to support your flawed position. You claim to be the end-all, be-all of Biology, but there are tens of thousands of REAL Biologists, in all disciplines who discount your position, and it is THEY who I have based my position upon. You've lost, and you're too prideful to admit it.

Well, enjoy your time standing out there in the middle of the field all by yourself.

 

[top gun]

Your interpretaion only indicates that you don't fully comprehend what you read. I have also never said that the cases are moving forward quickly. In fact, I have stated that it takes a very long time to move a case through the lower courts to the superior courts to the supreme court.

The first generation of suits brought on by states adding personhood clauses to their abortion laws are still at the state level. I suspect 3 to 5 years before a case comes to the court that will force the court to look at the eroneous assumption made by the roe court that unborns are something other than human beings. As the court said, if their assumption is proven wrong, roe must be struck down as unconstitutional.

We are all a little stupider for just having read this.

Pale 40 years... it been 40 frickin' years! It's certainly not that a case just hasn't "had time" to get there.

The reason is simple. There was a reasonable compromise decision made and nothing has changed since the original decision. At that time everybody knew that a fetus was a living organism. Everyone knew it was a separate & unique entity of human origin.

The compromise is that until viability (could reasonable live on it's own) or even after for life of the mother or severe birth defect or handicap the woman holds the decision.

Which isn't saying a whole lot because the woman ALWAYS HOLDS THE DECISION... BECAUSE IT'S INSIDE HER BODY. SHE CAN DO ABOUT A THOUSAND DIFFERENT THINGS TO GET IT OUT OF THERE IF SHE WANTS IT OUT OF THERE!

After viability then the standing changes, which I agree with the High Court on this as well.

In reality the anti-choice people know they can't stop abortion. Abortion has been a woman's prerogative and done ever since pregnancy began.

Knowing this to be true all anti-choice people really want is to make it as dangerous and deadly for women to do what they're going to do in maintaining control over their own personal bodies.

And this in itself is why you will never ever prevail.


everyone should watch...