when does a fetus become a baby ?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage
Can't say I've ever seen a "pro-deather" sign, nor a protest; however, people who are pro-choice also believe that continuing the pregnancy ("life") is a valid choice.


To be pro choice you are saying that a person can decide to kill the child or not. Does this not imply that you are indifferent to a human being murdered? If so, logically speaking, why couldn't you call it pro 'death', if your oponents are for 'life' only?




Your straw man fallacy is unnecessary. No one here is debating "human"; the topic involves when a supposed 'transition' from fetus to baby occurs.


Who said it was? I answered the OP question in my first line. The rest was simply food for thought, I see you choked on it as I hoped.




posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.


This is one of the more idiotic arguments I hear about abortion.


You're certainly welcome to your opinion.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
A newborn infant can not survive on it's own...in a natural environment it still needs to be a "parasite" by feeding on the mother's milk.


You straw man fallacy doesn't apply to my statement. What I said was "internal parasite". Feel free to consult a dictionary if you don't understand the definition of the word 'internal'.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So by your logic...mothers should still be able to kill them if they are too much trouble...right?


No, that's by your straw man logic. Again, feel free to consult a dictionary if you don't understand the definition of the word 'internal'.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You have to intentionally suspend logic for this argument to make sense.


Or simply change the subject and argue against a straw man fallacy that was never suggested to begin with.



Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
The lengths some people will go to in order to escape personal responsibility is astounding to me. Not to mention in the case of abortion it is also 100% hipocritcal and sexist because only the women are granted a "choice" to either take responsibility for their actions...or cop out and kill a human to escape it.


Most of this I agree with. I absolutely believe in fathers' rights as well. It takes "two to tango", and any prospective father should have a voice in the matter.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:09 PM
link   
I would consider it the 49th day. In his book "'___' The Spirit Molecule", Dr.Strassman states that on this day(49) the pineal gland activates and releases the bodies first dose of '___'. This is the same compound that is flooded into our brains upon death as well as when we dream and consume tryptamines ('___',Mushrooms, etc..)

- Buddha meditated under the Bodhi tree for 49 days until he reached enlightenment.

- The Tibetan book of the dead is a 49 day journey.(This book is often incorrectly interpreted literally. The death they are referring to is Ego death, which occurs during a Psychedelic trip)

- 49 days after the immaculate conception is Pentecost. (Pentecost represents the descent of the holy "SPIRIT" unto the apostles)




[edit on 13-4-2010 by GautamaAchyara]

[edit on 13-4-2010 by GautamaAchyara]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


LOL...I love people who throw out logical falacy arguments when they have nothing else to argue with.

You tell me something...what is so magical about it being "internal"??? And it seems that being "internal" is the basis of your argument.

So by your logic...a women should be able to get an abortion on her due date...correct? Women should be able to abort at 9 months...because it is still an "INTERNAL PARASITE"????


Right??? Or are you going to modify your argument to take care of that situation???

This should clue in people who support abortion that there is something wrong with their arguments...you have to keep creating special arguments for special situations.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
reply to post by redmage
 


Relgion doesnt play a part in this for me, Although I will say that I am seeing things that may point to a God, but I am not on board yet...

But murder is murder, I shoot you are 26 what is it? I stab you when your 10 what is it? I choke when your 3 what is it? I shake you to death at 2 months what is it? I suck you out of the womb with a vacuum what is it?


It's removing a growth we call a fetus from the woman's body. I know you want people to say it's murder, but that is hardly the case when the fetus can not survive without the mother at that stage. Yes, I also know it's gruesome looking, but so is every operation.

[edit on 13-4-2010 by Kaploink]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by kingofmd
To be pro choice you are saying that a person can decide to kill the child or not. Does this not imply that you are indifferent to a human being murdered?


No.

The problem with debating such topics is that most let their emotions get the best of them and logical fallacies start to fly.

The generally accepted definition of 'child' is a person between birth and adulthood. Such ambiguous wordage implies a lot that isn't a part of the debate.


Originally posted by kingofmd
If so, logically speaking, why couldn't you call it pro 'death', if your oponents are for 'life' only?


No, it's not logical at all. In fact, it's specifically a logical fallacy of composition, and could be debated that it includes a touch of false dilemma as well due to the fact that it's not an "A or B" issue; it's an "A + B or B" issue.

The fact of the matter is that many people who are pro-choice would never choose the 'death' option when it came to themselves.

Poedxsoldiervet is a perfect example. Like it or not, by accepting caveats such as a "mother's life in danger", or "rape" he/she is pro-choice.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:36 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


The only person "modifying" my arguments is you. I'm not here to defend your distortions because they are not my beliefs to defend.

If you cannot comprehend what I write, then don't bother responding, but don't distort or misquote my stances and then expect me to somehow defend your nonsense.

[edit on 4/13/10 by redmage]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:43 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


I'm neither distorting or misquoting you.

Here is your direct quote.


it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.



My argument to that is that newborn infants still can't survive on their own and so are still a "parasite" as you call it.

Your response to that was that you said "INTERNAL" and made it clear that is the basis of your argument.


So I don't know why you won't answer my question. I'll repeat it for you.

At 9 months into a pregnancy the fetus still can not survive on it's own and it is still INTERNAL. This was the only criteria that you have put forth for abortion being ok. So by your logic...you are saying it is still ok for an abortion to take place at 9 months into the pregnancy.

Is that correct?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


I'm with you on that one!

Recent research has shown that immediately after conception the fertilized egg moves into a rhythm which is 'out of sync' with the mother's metabolism and heart beat. This signifies that the now 'fertilzed' egg is no longer just a part of the mother, but that it now is a separate entity in it's own right. It is at about 2 hours after conception that the egg then locks into a synchronization with the mother's heartbeat, which is necessary for it to receive nourishment.

Here in Australia, they set the bar at 16 weeks: meaning that a women may have an abortion (legally) up to that point.

IMO, all abortion is "Murder".



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 12:57 PM
link   
I have heard many times different people likening a fetus to a 'growth' or tumor. Like a tumor, a fetus is a group of rapidly reproducing cells that are not genetically identical to the host body.

I don't think the analogy is very apt though, as most tumors or growths do not develop into bouncing baby girls or boys that later become teachers, doctors and all that makes our society tick.


[edit on 13-4-2010 by butcherguy]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:16 PM
link   
Well biology says if something is alive if...

1. Living things are highly organized. (like DNA,intercellular processes,tissure structure etc)

2. All living things have an ability to acquire materials and energy.
(Like take in food and use for energy)
3. All living things have an ability to respond to their environment.
(Leeching off another organism counts right?....like say a gestating mother)
4. All living things have an ability to reproduce.
(they can reproduce other cells...its called cell division)
5. All living things have an ability to adapt.

If its not alive then why doesn't it rot,decay, and stop growing like any other organic tissue?

A fertilized egg is the first LIVING HUMAN cell of another UNIQUE(genetically) HUMAN being. It may look like just a lump of tissue to you but its a growing unique new human organism. You have the rights over your body but NOT over another unique living human being thats developing inside of you.

So can women play god over thier developing babies/devloping indivisuals?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm neither distorting or misquoting you.


Yes, you are.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Here is your direct quote.


it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.


My argument to that is that newborn infants still can't survive on their own and so are still a "parasite" as you call it.


First... no, it's not a parasite "as I call it"; it's a parasite as you call it.

You've specifically chosen to take my use of the word 'parasite', and quote it alone, out of context, to argue a completely different point that is not my own.

Second... you've clearly not quoted the entire sentence (including the preface "As sad as it is;"), but why quote my actual statement in its entirety when it doesn't support your distortion that I'm somehow 'ok' with abortion.


Do not expect me to defend your nonsense, or your distortions, as my own.

If you don't like the laws regarding the issue, then feel free to petition your representatives. You wouldn't be the first, nor would you be the last to do such.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
At 9 months into a pregnancy the fetus still can not survive on it's own and it is still INTERNAL.


It's certainly internal, but as to whether or not it could survive on it's own that would depend on your definition.

At that stage being inside the womb wouldn't be a necessity of life, and the fetus could survive just fine outside the mother with little more than formula and nurturing.

That said, as third trimester abortions are not allowed in my state, this is a mute point as far as I'm concerned.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
This was the only criteria that you have put forth for abortion being ok. So by your logic...you are saying it is still ok for an abortion to take place at 9 months into the pregnancy.


Again with the straw man distortions.



Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
I'm *snip* still a "parasite"


Awww, now don't be so hard on yourself...

See? Selective, and/or out-of-context quoting can do wonders.


I've never said that it's "still ok for an abortion to take place at 9 months into the pregnancy.". In fact, now that 'late term' abortions have been brought up, I've specifically stated that it's not allowed in my state; thus, it is not 'ok'.

Since this is now the third time you've chosen not to respond to my actual statements (without adding your own out of context quotes and distortions) this will be my last response to you.

[edit on 4/13/10 by redmage]



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:03 PM
link   
reply to post by redmage
 


Of course you won't respond to me anymore...because you obviously don't like to be challenged.


Show me one spot where I misquoted you? Remember...the quotes are those little box things.

I have said that they logic you are using implies certain other things and I have asked you questions...neither are distorting nor misquoting.

You throw around "strawman" like it is going out of style...I've looked through some of your other posts and it appears it is a favorite tactic of yours. And I honestly don't think you actually grasp what a strawman fallacy is.


No, it's not a parasite "as I call it"; it's a parasite as you call it.


I never called it a parasite...you did on page 1. I would quote you again...but you would just claim I am misquoting you.


You've specifically chosen to take my use of the word 'parasite', and quote it alone, out of context, to argue a completely different point that is not my own.


I quoted the whole line you used it in...there is no more context available to quote. If you have a problem with that...maybe you should be more specific in your statments in the future so there is no confusion.

But tell me (if you are still going to discuss this as an adult and not run off like a child)...what is the context of your use of "internal parasite"???


It's certainly internal, but as to whether or not it could survive on it's own that would depend on your definition.


I think the phrase "ON IT'S OWN" is pretty self explainatory. Meaning....well....ON IT'S OWN...or in other words...without the aid of others.

So my argument still stands...a fetus that is in the 9 month of pregnancy STILL meets all your criteria..."parasite"....check...."internal"....check...."unable to survive on it's own"....check.


At that stage being inside the womb wouldn't be a necessity of life, and the fetus could survive just fine outside the mother with little more than formula and nurturing.


But could still not survive "ON IT'S OWN"...it would need formula and nurturing from someone...so it would still need the aid of others.

Do you see how you are having to modify your definitions and criteria as we progress??? Should be a clue to you that something isn't right.


That said, as third trimester abortions are not allowed in my state, this is a mute point as far as I'm concerned.


It seems it is only a moot point with you because you are dodging my question. I didn't ask about the legality of a third trimester abortion. I asked about your own personal opinion as it pertains to the criteria you have set forth about why an abortion is ok.

So I'll ask again.

In your personal opinion...is it ok for a women at 9 months pregnant to have an abortion based on your previous statements of it being an internal parasite unable to survive on it's own???




Don't worry...I know why you are dodging it...no matter how you answer it...it puts you in a difficult situation...which will lead to more questions by me which will put you in another difficult situation.

But you already took care of that by saying you will no longer respond to me...how convienent for you. But no hard feelings...everyone can clearly see you dodging my question...I can live with that...can you?



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Anti-Evil
 


Its debatable at what moment it becomes a baby but from the moment of conception it is alive. The moment the Mother's and Father's DNA combine they form a unique code that can only become an individual human.



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 02:15 PM
link   
Oh wow. you could not be more trolling. op



posted on Apr, 13 2010 @ 04:15 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


Alright, one final attempt to see if I can lay this out in a manner that you might be able to comprehend...


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Of course you won't respond to me anymore...because you obviously don't like to be challenged.


I don't mind being challenged at all; however, you're not 'challenging' me, you're 'challenging' your own distortions and lies, then somehow expecting me to defend them.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Show me one spot where I misquoted you?


Alright, I'll show you again. Here.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Here is your direct quote.


it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.


You've clearly not quoted the entire sentence (specifically the begining, "As sad as it is;"), but why quote my actual statement, in its entirety, when it doesn't support your distortion that I'm somehow 'ok' with abortion.

In fact, let's look at my original statement in its full context.


Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
I suck you out of the womb with a vacuum what is it?


As sad as it is; it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.


Clearly, I'm responding to a graphic question regarding defining an act of abortion.

What was your response?


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
This is one of the more idiotic arguments I hear about abortion.

A newborn infant can not survive on it's own...in a natural environment it still needs to be a "parasite" by feeding on the mother's milk.

So by your logic...mothers should still be able to kill them if they are too much trouble...right?


Really? By "my logic"?

No, I specifically recall stating in that very same post...


Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
I shake you to death at 2 months what is it?


Again, it depends on what the courts decide, but it'd likely be murder, or manslaughter.


THERE'S 'my logic'. No need for your lies and distortions when I've specifically stated my beliefs out there for all to see.

Lets not forget this response, to my definition of abortion, as well...


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
You tell me something...what is so magical about it being "internal"??? And it seems that being "internal" is the basis of your argument.


Yes, being 'internal' was a basis to my 'argument'... defining abortion.

Lets look at the dictionary...


Source

a·bor·tion

1. Also called voluntary abortion. the removal of an embryo or fetus from the uterus in order to end a pregnancy.


"From the uterus" sounds pretty 'internal' to me.

Please explain how my earlier definition in any way, shape, or form leads to your statement...


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
A newborn infant can not survive on it's own...in a natural environment it still needs to be a "parasite" by feeding on the mother's milk.

So by your logic...mothers should still be able to kill them if they are too much trouble...right?


Wrong. Let's review my logic once more just to make sure you don't miss it this time.


Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by poedxsoldiervet
I shake you to death at 2 months what is it?


Again, it depends on what the courts decide, but it'd likely be murder, or manslaughter.


Is it sinking in yet?


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

No, it's not a parasite "as I call it"; it's a parasite as you call it.


I never called it a parasite...you did on page 1.


This is a flat out lie. You can not show me one place that I ever referred to a newborn infant as a parasite. In fact, the first place such a notion was put forth was by you, on page one, with this statement...


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
A newborn infant can not survive on it's own...in a natural environment it still needs to be a "parasite" by feeding on the mother's milk.


So you were the one to call a newborn a parasite, then you dishonestly tried to push off the notion as if it were my statement/sentiment.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

You've specifically chosen to take my use of the word 'parasite', and quote it alone, out of context, to argue a completely different point that is not my own.


I quoted the whole line you used it in...there is no more context available to quote.


Another flat out lie. The whole line was; "As sad as it is; it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.". Proving there was further context, and that's not even including the question it was in response to.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
If you have a problem with that...maybe you should be more specific in your statments in the future so there is no confusion.


My statements were quite clear, and specific. You simply chose not to address them, but instead to create straw man arguments and lies.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
what is the context of your use of "internal parasite"???


In defining 'abortion' by answering the question; "I suck you out of the womb with a vacuum what is it?".


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
So my argument still stands...a fetus that is in the 9 month of pregnancy STILL meets all your criteria..."parasite"....check...."internal"....check...."unable to survive on it's own"....check.


If you're referring to my criteria of 'what is an abortion', then yes; termination of a pregnancy in the ninth month would still be considered an abortion.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
Do you see how you are having to modify your definitions and criteria as we progress??? Should be a clue to you that something isn't right.


The only thing I've done is to have to break things down to ridiculously specific levels because you refuse to acknowledge my actual statements and beliefs, and instead you've attempted to supplant them with your own blatant lies and distortions. You're certainly correct that something isn't right, but I guarantee it's not what you think it is because it's not originating from this end like you've implied.


I asked about your own personal opinion as it pertains to the criteria you have set forth about why an abortion is ok.


This is another flat lie. I've never put forth any criteria about "why an abortion is ok". The only thing that could be remotely twisted to such an absurd statement was in fact the exact opposite (by my statement that third trimester abortions are not allowed in my state). If you feel that somehow equates to me giving a personal 'thumbs up' to first and second trimester abortions, then you need to refresh yourself with a reading comprehension course at your local community college.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
In your personal opinion...is it ok for a women at 9 months pregnant to have an abortion based on your previous statements of it being an internal parasite unable to survive on it's own???


No.

[edit on 4/13/10 by redmage]



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by redmage

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher

it's the removal of an internal parasite that's incapable of surviving on its own.


This is one of the more idiotic arguments I hear about abortion.


You're certainly welcome to your opinion.


Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
A newborn infant can not survive on it's own...in a natural environment it still needs to be a "parasite" by feeding on the mother's milk.


You straw man fallacy doesn't apply to my statement. What I said was "internal parasite". Feel free to consult a dictionary if you don't understand the definition of the word 'internal'.




Ok Stop referring to the fetus as a parisite, it is not by any definition a parasite you can look it up online if you dont have a dictionary as you keep acusing people of not having. ill cut and paste the definition for you here



edit on 11-9-2010 by spyderbyteRN because: did not mean to type my response as a quote



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:41 PM
link   
reply to post by spyderbyteRN
 


par·a·site
   /ˈpærəˌsaɪt/ Show Spelled[par-uh-sahyt] Show IPA
–noun
1.
an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.
2.
a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.
3.
(in ancient Greece) a person who received free meals in return for amusing or impudent conversation, flattering remarks, etc.
seeing how the "parasite" as you call it is not from another species but is in fact the same species it is not a parasite. By your logic all creatures would have regular instances of a parasite in them every time there was a pregnancy and thats just taking the English language and turning it on itself. That is why we call it a zygote, embryo, and fetus. You will find no scholarly reference to a fetus as a parasite anywhere except in propaganda that people put out to support their silly side of a moral argument. Please stick to the medical facts if you wish to argue there are far too many people who speak like they have knowledge while spreading ignorance. I am currently in school finishing up my RN and if i ever even in my feminist dominated OB course referred to a fetus as a parasite would defintenly be in error and could never get credit for any answer or report that assumed otherwise
dictionary.reference.com...



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 09:58 PM
link   
reply to post by butcherguy
 


I had an early miscarriage once and at the time I felt like I had lost a baby. When a couple knows the Mother is pregnant your mind and soul go into baby mode, after all the plan is to end up with a baby, so if a miscarriage happens you will feel you have lost a baby. I hope that makes sense, I have thought of it often - a little difficult to put into words.

When I got pregnant the second time people told me to no get excited too early, but you know I did - I had a beautiful daughter.



posted on Sep, 11 2010 @ 10:04 PM
link   
I find it amusing we debate about killing life.
You want to know if it is "ok" to kill your unborn child? You tell me.
Let me ask you this.
Will you kill a fly?
Oh yes then it's ok to kill your unborn.
proceed who cares.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join