Pro-Life Youth Crash Pro-Abortion Women’s March

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JustAnObservation

You cellist!

Sperm are alive.

But again, you're arguing opinion and emotions. That's all the pro life, pro choice, pro whatever debate is all about. Opinions and emotions.

Sperm are as lifeless as the progs and just as single minded.

originally posted by: JustAnObservation

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: JustAnObservation

You cellist!

Sperm are alive.

But again, you're arguing opinion and emotions. That's all the pro life, pro choice, pro whatever debate is all about. Opinions and emotions.

Sperm is something a human produces. It is not a human being. A fetus, a zygote, IS.

And again, these are not opinions OR emotions. These are scientific facts.

Humans also produce babies.

This is the problem I see a lot with the anti abortion crowd. Definitions get skewed to fit what they want. Alive is alive, until it's something relatively insignifant, then that thing isn't alive, even though it has the basics as the other thing that they say is alive.

So which is it? Are fetuses/feti alive or not?

a reply to: TerryDon79

I'm not sure I understand, but I will try to clarify what I think you are asking. Sperm is alive. But sperm is not it's own entity. It is part of an entity, a human in this case, with the DNA to match. Alone, while alive, the sperm has no ability to turn into another human.

The zygote on the other hand is NOT a part of a larger entity, as sperm, blood, or skin cells are. It is alive just as they are, however, the zygote is an entirely different human with different DNA. It will not match the mother as her period blood would because it is not a part of her in the same sense. It is a new human. You started as a zygote, a cell that multiplied to form a fetus, to then form an infant, then a toddler, then a child, teenager, adult.. and so on. Alive is alive, there can be no skewed definition. Cell = life. But we are not arguing whether or not a cell is life, which is a proven fact. I am explaining that a zygote is the first stage of an entirely new being. It is very different from a blood cell. I'm not sure how else I can explain this, but I suggest reading a basic biology textbook which may explain this better than I have.

Fetuses are alive, as I have been saying all along.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

Right. Ish.

If you take away a fetus from its mother too soon, it is a dead fetus. That makes it not it's own entity.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

Don't want a baby? Don't have sex.

you do realize that the day that we see a bunch of angry women carrying signs that say this who have every intention of doing it, will be the end of the pro-life movement, right???

And if the pregnant woman does not want the child, she can opt out - by giving it up for adoption.

she can't opt out of carrying it the nine months though, can she?? my last pregnancy was causing enough problems that I really couldn't safely take on the responsibilities of the two I had already given birth to, although there was no one to take those responsibilities off my hands, not even for a few hours a few days a week. I chose to ignore the doctor's advice and take the risk with the third in order care for the two.
and tell me, how many people are caring for their comatose loved ones alone? maybe a few super rich people who have the resources to convert a portion of their house to a mini-hospital and hire a staff are at least keeping their loved one in their home, but for most their comatose loved one in a hospital or nursing home and it's shameful just how many of them have been practically forgotten by their families.
the two situations are even close to being the same. if my condition had been just a little worse, it's quite possible that I would have ended up being in a hospital bed for about half my pregnancy, in which case, ya, I would have had to make a choice between two very bad situations, either putting my two kids into foster care, or aborting the baby.
how long has our country been at war, littering other countries with radioactive bomb fragments?
do we consider it murder when those bombs fell on mothers, fathers, grandparents, and kids?
how many people have been shot by the police, the one come to mind at the moment was the counselor who was trying to cox the autistic man out of the road who was, I believe playing with a toy truck? self defense!! the cop thought the guy had a gun, then missed him and shot the wrong person!! very few are considered to be murders.
if a stranger broke into your house and you saw them going for your kid's bedroom, would you hesitate to grab a gun and take him down before he reached your kid? would you consider it murder, or defending your child?
just what is the difference between all of these and a women aborting an unborn child to defend her family from a threat that could be much more damaging than someone breaking into your house to steal your tv... which many I bet would consider a reasonable cause to shoot the guy!

a reply to: TerryDon79

If you take a newborn away from the care of its mother/society, it will also die. It is still its own entity. Just as the fetus is. Both are alive, with their own DNA, entirely a separate being. The fetus is just a little younger than the newborn. But no less human, no less alive, and no less its own separate entity.

Oops. Double post.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

If you take a newborn away from the care of its mother/society, it will also die.

so, how do you manage to shift the responsibility of that 4 month fetus over to society if the women needs it shifted over?

originally posted by: JustAnObservation
a reply to: TerryDon79

If you take a newborn away from the care of its mother/society, it will also die. It is still its own entity. Just as the fetus is. Both are alive, with their own DNA, entirely a separate being. The fetus is just a little younger than the newborn. But no less human, no less alive, and no less its own separate entity.

I think we've wasted enough thread space as I'm not going to agree with you and you're not gonna agree with me. And to be honest, I just don't see the point of debating/arguing over something that neither of us will budge on.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JustAnObservation

If you take a newborn away from the care of its mother/society, it will also die.

so, how do you manage to shift the responsibility of that 4 month fetus over to society if the women needs it shifted over?

I did not say anything about society's responsibility regarding the 4 month fetus. I only said that a newborn baby cannot survive without outside support, just as a fetus cannot, but that they are both their own separate entities and not an extension of the mother.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

but it is within it's mother, isn't it? it's feeding off her, it's changing her bodily functions, heck it's even rewiring her brain. and, it's embedding it's dna into her body while the mothers embed hers into the fetus' and possibly even the dna of her previous children. I highly question the idea that it is a separate entity. and, well, if it's separate dna that defines it as a separate entity, then what about those cells in our bodies that match our mother's dna, or our siblings? are those cells her's, or are they the relative's that the dna matches?

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: JustAnObservation

but it is within it's mother, isn't it? it's feeding off her, it's changing her bodily functions, heck it's even rewiring her brain. and, it's embedding it's dna into her body while the mothers embed hers into the fetus' and possibly even the dna of her previous children. I highly question the idea that it is a separate entity. and, well, if it's separate dna that defines it as a separate entity, then what about those cells in our bodies that match our mother's dna, or our siblings? are those cells her's, or are they the relative's that the dna matches?

The DNA of the zygote is a combination of the father and mothers DNA due to it being the unison of the two haploid cells (sperm and the egg) so yes there are similarities. However, you and I are not extensions of our mothers - we are our own people, and have been since we were conceived, with our own DNA, the start of which was the zygote. Certainly the baby is within the mother, but it is not a part of the mother the way her organs are. That might be a better way to explain it. Organs are also a 'mass' of cells, but they are a part of a whole entity (you). The zygote you once were has multiplied to form who you are today. Your organ cells will never form a new human. But the zygote IS its own being. You can research this, it is very basic biology.

So yes - the baby is within the mother and she nourishes it, however, her cells and DNA are not "going into it" in the sense you are saying. This happened at conception, the formation of the zygote was the sperm and egg meeting. After that, it simply divides until adulthood and beyond. It is absolutely its own entity - the zygote contains all genetic information necessary to create a new individual. It will divide until that happens. No other "input of DNA" from the mother as you described is necessary. It isn't an idea, this is the definition, it can be researched easily.

a reply to: JustAnObservation

nope..

It is remarkable that it is so common for cells from one individual to integrate into the tissues of another distinct person. We are accustomed to thinking of ourselves as singular autonomous individuals, and these foreign cells seem to belie that notion, and suggest that most people carry remnants of other individuals. As remarkable as this may be, stunning results from a new study show that cells from other individuals are also found in the brain. In this study, male cells were found in the brains of women and had been living there, in some cases, for several decades. What impact they may have had is now only a guess, but this study revealed that these cells were less common in the brains of women who had Alzheimer’s disease, suggesting they may be related to the health of the brain.

We all consider our bodies to be our own unique being, so the notion that we may harbor cells from other people in our bodies seems strange. Even stranger is the thought that, although we certainly consider our actions and decisions as originating in the activity of our own individual brains, cells from other individuals are living and functioning in that complex structure. However, the mixing of cells from genetically distinct individuals is not at all uncommon. This condition is called chimerism after the fire-breathing Chimera from Greek mythology, a creature that was part serpent part lion and part goat. Naturally occurring chimeras are far less ominous though, and include such creatures as the slime mold and corals.

www.scientificamerican.com...

we can have cells that carry different dna, the effect that these cells have on their host is still being debated. there seems to be evidence that they may be acting like stem cells, but then, there is also evidence that they might linked to multiple sclerosis.
it has to have more than just a different dna to be considered a different entity, let alone "human, deserving the same rights as a born person. the ability to become a born person is required yes, but then, there can be times when an egg and a sperm will produce dna that is so defective that the result does not resemble anything human.. look up jellyfish babies... and the dna probably isn't so different so that it wouldn't register as "human".

does being human require a brain, the ability to at least think "I AM"? because that little fertilized egg probably doesn't have that ability.
does it require having a soul, spirit? well, the only source we have to determine when that happens is religious teachings.. I don't know about any other religions but in the bible, there seems to be two different stages that it's seen to occur... the quickening (when the baby is first felt) and at birth (when god breathes the first breath into the baby and it becomes a living soul)...

according to quantum mechanics it's just a quantum superpositions until it's observed and interacted with by the outside world -- recognized by someone. which if I am reading it right, and I might not be... she isn't pregnant till she's aware that she is pregnant. until then, there is a possibility that she is, or is isn't... just a possibility. and, till a baby is actually born, it's still a possibility only, a greater possibility than the little feretilized egg that mom doesn't know she is carrying. I would say that the fetus becomes a baby when the mom psychologically accepts it as such... from the time that the egg is fertilize and the time it is born the mother will go through a series of steps that will bond the two. the first step is to know you are pregnant, another is those first doctor's visits, the tests and such that confirms the fact. once it's confirmed, she will start planning for the new arrival, thinking about names, buying a crib, wondering and imagining what the baby will look like, feel it move, and well, if they are like I was, talking to the baby, and chasing it's little feel as it runs across their stomach... by the ninth month, the baby is a reality, it has a place prepared for it in the world, and that world already has expectations for it... some of which he will go beyond to the delight of those in the world with the expectations, while other expectations will not be achieved.

Do these anti abortion people do anything about it other than attack women? Do they provide financial help to women who worry about supporting a child? Do they fund research in to effective forms of contraception for men and women?

one argument i've never heard is the possible negative effects to female biology due to abortions, it is a fact that female hips are getting smaller and c-sections are becoming more common and fertility rates have also been dropping too, i wonder if things like abortion are telling our dna to destroy our reproductive ability..

will we one day have to create children in labs instead because female bodies won't have the capability due to infertility, hips, uterus and vaginas being too small; is abortion setting us on the path of extinction as a species?

originally posted by: namehere
one argument i've never heard is the possible negative effects to female biology due to abortions, it is a fact that female hips are getting smaller and c-sections are becoming more common and fertility rates have also been dropping too, i wonder if things like abortion are telling our dna to destroy our reproductive ability..

will we one day have to create children in labs instead because female bodies won't have the capability due to infertility, hips, uterus and vaginas being too small; is abortion setting us on the path of extinction as a species?

Abortions have been going on in one form or another since women have been getting pregnant. Also, did you know that it is estimated that around 50% of fertilized eggs end up spontaneously aborting?

a reply to: TerryDon79

Are you comparing a fetus to a parasite? Look up the definition and get back with us....
Wait, I will help you out.

A parasite is an organism that lives on, or in, an organism of a different species. A fetus is the same species as its mother.... people amaze me.....

a reply to: namehere

it's more like women with smaller hips were less likely to survive childbirth in times past.. and often times their offspring didn't survive either, so the small hip genes weren't passed down to future generations. but, thanks to medical science, having small hips isn't a death sentence to these women, or the babies they are carrying, they live to carrying those genes into the future more often.

a reply to: newsoul

I don't know where you get your definitions from, but I get mine from a dictionary.

1An organism which lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense:

Oxford English Dictionary

originally posted by: ksiezyc
a reply to: sad_eyed_lady

Glad to hear. Abortion is essentially murder. The fetus is not a segment of the woman's body, but a separate entity of its own. Those women should go back home, either to work or to their families, but with the intellect I see them displaying I would not hire them, and with their lack of compassion I would not wed them.

Glad to see you're standing by your opinion, but is it speech? How many of those 'murdered ' fetuses have you saved by volunteering to adopt them?