Now what a story this is! ..what a doctor said infront of an abortion

(double post error)

Excellent! I love it! The same morons that say it’s only a fetus… are the same morons that run around screaming for joy at the prospect of finding a germ or spec of a water crystal on Mars and declare “We found life!” Idiots. Why do we bitch about fat people clogging up the medical system costing us money and say nothing of the millions of abortions that cost us when all these people have to do is keep their pants on. Fat people need to eat no matter what. You don’t have to hook up every chance you get and expect to kill a child because of your foolish , inconsiderate, irresponsible act.

Originally posted by Natame
Ok im sorry but i guess i have issues with this... a womans body is hers and hers alone. I have had three wonderful children and i know i would never have aborted them. But i also believe a woman has the right to choose her fate. I do understand the fact that a baby once conceived is alive. But knowing that there is alot of different reasons that a woman could or would want to terminate that said pregnancy is her CHOICE. I would never dictate to anyone that wanted to have a tattoo or plastic surgery, to have a cancer removed or life threatening surgery..Your body belongs to you... only you have that choice to do what you will with it.

A woman's body may be her own, but a baby does not have the right to its own body? A baby is a body, growing inside what is supposed to be the safest place for it.

How about consulting with the other body before deciding to take its life away. Imagine this...as the woman is pointing to her body saying "this body is mine" the baby is also inside pointing to its own body saying "this body is mine".

Ok so her choice over her body to get tattoos and plastic surgery, but to pass it off as "my body", they don't see that the life growing inside them is also a body, who has no rights at all.

Originally posted by ElectricUniverse

Originally posted by RainbeauBleu

But pro-lifers would kill the living in order to make their point!

Only a extreme faction of pro-lifers do this. We leave the killing to the "pro-choice crowd"... You do that very well and EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK...

But keep laughing about it, we know exactly how you feel about this topic...

I am laughing at the hypocrisy of killing abortion doctors to make a point when one is calling themselves 'pro-life. I'm sure it is just a small percentage that are violent mentally, emotionally and physically about the issue. I don't even think about this 'issue'. It's not something that is on top of my list. When I read the thread, I thought the doctor's advice was insane and illegal, so I missed the point of the contrived story. Doctors are frequently committing heinous acts as well as forcing their agendas on patients. I saw this as just another example of the corruption amongst the White Coats.


It's a fake story? I don't respect that kind of tactic regardless of the subject. In fact, I think it discredits any movement to pull stunts like that. My apologies. I never meant to stumble into a pro-life agenda thread and will stay out of those neighborhoods. I think this is a fine example of trolling. A false story to elicit a response and start arguments is posted and then a fight ensues in the comments. I find that distracting from any relevant point that might have been made. It's unethical and kind of shady.


What do you mean by "You do that very well and EVERY SINGLE DAY OF THE WEEK...

" ?
I'm lost. Me, personally? Or do you perceive me as the "Them" you are fighting? Do you think everyone is one or the other and that you must attack the enemy? If you are trying to make the point that pro-lifers can be extreme, it's made. I may kill bacteria when I shower or wash my hands with hot water or kill some bugs when I drive my car, but I bet you do too. What do you mean by asserting that I am killing every day of the week?


MODS: This isn't a Medical Issue or Conspiracy.
Maybe this post should be moved to the HOAX forum,
since it's a fake story and a Moral, not Medical Issue!

reply to post by WarminIndy

A baby is a body, growing inside what is supposed to be the safest place for it.

EPIC POST!!

reply to post by WarminIndy

How about consulting with the other body before deciding to take its life away.

We tried that, it doesnt care anymore than braindead bodies or plants, since its impossible to do so without mind.

Ok so her choice over her body to get tattoos and plastic surgery, but to pass it off as "my body", they don't see that the life growing inside them is also a body, who has no rights at all.

Why should human body without mind have any rights?

reply to post by Solaris15


IIRC even 7 billion could all have a plot of land in Texas.

The technologies are available to enable many more than that to live on the earth without trashing the earth or each other. Such technologies are being withheld.

The globalist oligarchy realizes that 7 billion slaves would be a LOT harder to keep enslaved than 200 million.

Besides, the critters from hell have convinced them that the earth and mankind cannot survive with so many people.

reply to post by Southern Guardian


You keep trying to say this is my opinion...but it is not. It is biological fact.

I only have one question for you. You are taking a Biology exam, what is the correct answer to this question.


When does the life cycle begin?
A) When brain waves are present
B) At Fertilization/Conception
C) When the heart is functioning
D) When the fetus leaves the womb

Originally posted by BO XIAN
reply to post by Solaris15

 

IIRC even 7 billion could all have a plot of land in Texas.

The technologies are available to enable many more than that to live on the earth without trashing the earth or each other. Such technologies are being withheld.

The globalist oligarchy realizes that 7 billion slaves would be a LOT harder to keep enslaved than 200 million.

Besides, the critters from hell have convinced them that the earth and mankind cannot survive with so many people.

Exactly. We now have the technologies to take completely deserted areas and make them lush and green again. We have the technology to terraform these areas and bring new life to them and make them hospitable yet it does not happen because why? Certain "people" would have us believe that it is harming the environment and the natural habitats of certain species, so the governments.of the world have possessed these areas and forbid them to be changed. The earth is not by any means running out of room for people to live on, just the Illuminati want us to see it that way.

reply to post by heineken


argh i had typed out a long response and then my dog walked in and jumped on my keyboard which erased the whole thing...

ill summarize what I typed before:

The doctors said I was going to be born with brain damage and birth defects
They strongly urged my parents to abort me
My parents had to sign papers so that they couldn't sue them afterwards.
I was born perfectly fine and the doctors were so surprised that they stopped doing abortions after that.

And abortion is murder, it doesn't matter if the person is 1 day old or 1 year old.

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Besides, the critters from hell have convinced them that the earth and mankind cannot survive with so many people.

The idea that "the Earth cannot survive with so many people" is as old as the beginning of the 19th century with Thomas Malthus. Yet, two centuries later, we have almost 4 times as many people as Malthus said that was too many, and we are fine.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

You keep trying to say this is my opinion...but it is not. It is biological fact.

I only have one question for you. You are taking a Biology exam, what is the correct answer to this question.


When does the life cycle begin?
A) When brain waves are present
B) At Fertilization/Conception
C) When the heart is functioning
D) When the fetus leaves the womb

Ok, so you're going to move away from your nutty proposals to throw tax payer money into government to glorify the prolife stance, that's fine.

I will concede that life begins at fertilization of the egg. I don't however think a fertilized egg can be compared to a human being, and I don't think we can legally give it the same rights as a human being. The fertilized egg has the potential to become a human being, and will more than often become one, but it is not a human being right from the start. A human being to me and to many others is a being that can survive outside, not completely dependent on survival to one core host. We cannot treat every fertilized egg just a human being under the law, it is not possible in reality, unless your intention is to just have law established for symbolic terms, which would otherwise make it pointless to the reality.

Now if this is what you intend to continue to do outkast, continue to insist that life starts at a fertilized egg and there for it must be treated like every living breathing human being, you're not going to get anywhere. You cannot force somebody to abide by your standards, your views, your perception of what is fact, and you cannot apply the laws in the same manner to fertilized eggs as we do with humans. You would spend your time more productively arguing why alternatives to abortions are much better, why giving pregnancy a chance will be self fulfilling in the end. You can't just go around insisting that things must be what you say they are or what facts you have, and expect things to change.

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by ChristianJihad

Last time I checked - - a major problem in the world is children abandoned by their fathers

reply to post by Annee

 

Hm, not taking sides but this is not that uncommon umongst primates

I realize humans are primates - - but we have evolved just a tad bit more (arguable sometimes).

Hm, this could be lengthy so I'll graciously back out of a head butt with a lady

reply to post by Southern Guardian

I will concede that life begins at fertilization of the egg.

And for me that is where the debate ends.

If you move further than that, trying to define what a "real" human being is...then you get caught up in the No True Scotsman fallacy.

en.wikipedia.org...

No true Scotsman is an informal logical fallacy, an ad hoc attempt to retain an unreasoned assertion.[1] When faced with a counterexample to a universal claim, rather than denying the counterexample or rejecting the original universal claim, this fallacy modifies the subject of the assertion to exclude the specific case or others like it by rhetoric, without reference to any specific objective rule.

And this is how the abortion debate goes everytime when argued from the standpoint of biology. It begins with pro-choicers adamentaly declaring that a fetus isn't "alive", then they concede that it is "life" but it's not human life, then they concede that it is human life...but not "true human life".

And this is exactly what you did with this quote:

I will concede that life begins at fertilization of the egg. I don't however think a fertilized egg can be compared to a human being, and I don't think we can legally give it the same rights as a human being.

Pro-choicers original claim: A fetus isn't alive
Counter-example: Biology declares the life cycle as being from fertilization/conception to death
Pro-choicers No True Scotsman Fallacy: Ok, it's alive, but it isn't a "real" human life yet.



I only deal with facts and logic.

The facts tell me that life begins at fertilization/conception...and logic prevents me from trying to alter that statement by commiting a fallacy to re-define the assertion.



So you have conceded that a fetus is a human life. Now can I ask you WHY you feel you have to declare it as not being a "real human"? If you are ok with abortion, why can't you say you are ok with killing human beings that don't meet your criteria of humans that deserve the right to life? Why must you try to re-define what it is to be "human"?

Originally posted by Leahn

Originally posted by BO XIAN
Besides, the critters from hell have convinced them that the earth and mankind cannot survive with so many people.

The idea that "the Earth cannot survive with so many people" is as old as the beginning of the 19th century with Thomas Malthus. Yet, two centuries later, we have almost 4 times as many people as Malthus said that was too many, and we are fine.

We are fine? Citation needed. Almost billion people lack basic necessities. Yes, when your goal is merely survive as a species, then we are fine, I am not disputing that. When your goal is good quality of life for all people, then we are not fine.

Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
And this is how the abortion debate goes everytime when argued from the standpoint of biology. It begins with pro-choicers adamentaly declaring that a fetus isn't "alive",

Really? I don't recall anybody here arguing that a fetus wasn't alive. The point was, and always has been, that a fertilized egg is not the same as a human being. Who says a fetus wasn't alive?

I only deal with facts and logic.

And yet you refuse to deal with this important fact. It is the woman that get takes on the pregnancy, as nature intends it. During her time in pregnacy, she has full control over what she does with her body. During pregnancy, her body is still her own. What she eats, what she drinks, will effect that fertilized egg. She takes on the pain, she takes on the ownership, that fertilized egg and fetus feeds off what she does, it is in her body, this is a fact. In the end, it is her choice and control over what she does with her body. What moral or ethical standards you have, or what facts you have to present for 'rights' concerning that fertilized egg doesn't change the fact that it is her body, and her body to do with. Establishing laws will not change the control she has over her body and over her own pregnancy. This is a fact you seem to continously brush off.

We can do this all day, we really can. You can go on about facts, about what rights fertilized eggs 'should' have, and I can simply say, it's still her body, it's still her decision, it's still her control as nature has given her, irregardless of the morals, laws or ethics.

The facts tell me that life begins at fertilization/conception...and logic prevents me from trying to alter that statement by commiting a fallacy to re-define the assertion.

So you have conceded that a fetus is a human life. Now can I ask you WHY you feel you have to declare it as not being a "real human"?

I already explained this in my previous post. A fertilized egg is dependent on one core host, it is incapable of awareness or thinking. A fertilized egg may be alive, but so is bacteria, viruses, sperm and so forth. A fertilized egg may be the beginning of human development, but that doesn't make it a living human being, the circumstances surrounding fertilized eggs are vastly different from the circumstances involving you and me.

The reality of life ain't pritty, and the fact is, there are a fair amount of fertilized eggs that die, that cease to exist, for those fertilized eggs that continue on to develop into human beings. Nature doesn't treat a fertilized egg of a human any differently from that of any other creature. It is estimated that more than of fertilized eggs are spontanously aborted, it's just yet another reality. Human beings are more than just genes or DNA.

You continue to try to steer the debate to ethics, morals, to your own 'facts' on what is a humanbeing, when at core the argument is about the choice in the matter. As I stated before, and as you continue to ignore, you cannot expect to force your standards and views, you ideas of what is fact, to prevent abortion from happening. It doesn't change the control the woman has over that fundamental decision, it doesn't change the fact this is still her body.

If you are ok with abortion, why can't you say you are ok with killing human beings that don't meet your criteria of humans that deserve the right to life?

I don't like abortions, not all pro-choicers like the reality of abortions, infact those who do are in a small minority. This is a common mistake that pro-lifers make about pro-choicers, they assume that we all just love the idea with abortions when that is often not the case. I would not choose abortion, it is a sad way to end what could potentially become a great human being, but I can sympathize and understand the decision that some woman, those of unspeakable victims of crimes, have to make over this matter. In contrast, I would be disgusted at this idea that you'd put further punishment and demonise a woman, as the result of an unspeakable crime, making the decision of abortion. To me, you're no better than the rapist or molester that did what he did to her.

It's their bodies in the end, it is not my business, I am not the one undertaking that pregnancy, the pain, I am not their husband, or relative. I have no right to force my views or control what they can't or can do with their bodies. Neither has nature given me the ability to make that decision for them. Pregnant women are not barbie dolls.

Why must you try to re-define what it is to be "human

Since when was a fertilized egg conclusively defined as a human being?

reply to post by Southern Guardian


A Fetus is a human being. It contains all the human genome and chromosomes that make it human. Just because it looks nothing like a human being walking around 40 years post uterus, does not mean it is not human.

The DNA structure of a fetus is completely human.

One very lucky spermatozoon out of hundreds of millions ejaculated by the man may penetrate the outside layer of the ovum and fertilize it. This happens typically in the upper third of one of the woman's Fallopian tubes. The surface of the ovum changes its electrical characteristics and normally prevents additional sperm from entering. A genetically unique entity is formed shortly thereafter, called a zygote. This is commonly referred to as a "fertilized ovum." However that term is not really valid because the ovum ceases to exist after the completion of conception. Writers often refer to the "moment of conception" or "instant of conception." Actually, this is a process that extends over time. Half of the zygote's 46 chromosomes come from the egg's 23 chromosomes and the other half from the spermatozoon's 23. The result is a unique DNA structure, different from both that of the ovum and the spermatozoon. Thus, the resulting newborn will contain a different DNA from its birth mother, and birth father, and from its siblings. These differences may give the child a reproductive advantage or disadvantage over other children in society. It is this factor that Charles Darwin made the driving force of his theory of evolution. The zygote "...is biologically alive. It fulfills the four criteria needed to establish biological life: metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, and reproduction." 1 It can reproduce itself through twinning at any time up to about 14 days after conception; this is how identical twins are caused. The zygote will contain an X sex chromosome donated from the egg and either an X or Y sex chromosome coming from the spermatozoon. If it ends up with XX chromosomes, the xygote is female; if XY, it is male. In this way, the sex of a zygote, embryo, fetus and child is determined by the birth father's permatozoa. Unfortunately, in the past, women were often blamed for producing new or no male children. In some cultures, particularly those where women are devalued, they are still unjustly blamed.

By the time it is a zygote, it is already male or female. That male or female already contains the DNA that determines everything about that human.

www.youtube.com...

That is how a baby develops. Amazing.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

A Fetus is a human being. It contains all the human genome and chromosomes that make it human.

Who says? Is this scientific fact? Is the conclusion of the scientific community, or just your intepretation?

Something containing human genome, chromosomes doesn't make it a human being necessarily. DNA, genes, chromosomes, we find this in parts of our hairs, our saliva. It has already been demonstrated by science that it is possible to clone humans out of DNA left in segments or parts such as hairs.

Seriously, this is where I end my debate concerning the definition of a human being, because it really goes no where when it concerns the personal intepreations of pro-lifers. In the end this is about choice, and I have demontrated time and time again, the choice is always left up to the woman in the end. It's her body, her pregnancy, as nature has given her. Your views or morals don't apply. This is something pro-lifers cannot seem to understand, comprehed, or refuse to acknowledge.

Originally posted by Southern Guardian

Originally posted by WarminIndy
reply to post by Southern Guardian

 

A Fetus is a human being. It contains all the human genome and chromosomes that make it human.

Who says? Is this scientific fact? Is the conclusion of the scientific community, or just your intepretation?

Something containing human genome, chromosomes doesn't make it a human being necessarily. DNA, genes, chromosomes, we find this in parts of our hairs, our saliva. It has already been demonstrated by science that it is possible to clone humans out of DNA left in segments or parts such as hairs.

Seriously, this is where I end my debate concerning the definition of a human being, because it really goes no where when it concerns the personal intepreations of pro-lifers. In the end this is about choice, and I have demontrated time and time again, the choice is always left up to the woman in the end. It's her body, her pregnancy, as nature has given her. Your views or morals don't apply. This is something pro-lifers cannot seem to understand, comprehed, or refuse to acknowledge.

Well a hair by itself means nothing, except the source of the hair. That is "splitting hairs". I never brought any morality views in my discussion with you. But because abortion itself is a moral issue, then it is wise to consider those views. A choice by a woman is based in her own moral views. Therefore, if a choice is dictated by prior moral views, then it shall remain a moral issue.

You say a hair does not indicate human life. Yet that strand of hair contains the entire DNA information about the human that hair originated from. Science can differentiate between ape, chimpanzee, dog or human from that hair. So you say we can clone humans from hair, that indicates from human hair you clone humans, isn't that what you propose? I had to say it twice to get to the point.

What you are intimating is that a human exists solely within the post-uterus form, fully developed. Yet that tiny human does not have the mental capacity yet to make complex decisions. It, however, is still developing that feature. But that tiny human is not developing any more of its DNA, it already has that information fully functioning, as a zygote.

That is science.

Originally posted by WarminIndy
You say a hair does not indicate human life. Yet that strand of hair contains the entire DNA information about the human that hair originated from.

I didn't say hair doesn't contain human life. There is a difference between human life and an actual human being. You don't seem to distinguish the two, as with vast majority of pro-lifers. They are however two different things in the science community, and in the views of many others.

What you are intimating is that a human exists solely within the post-uterus form, fully developed. Yet that tiny human does not have the mental capacity yet to make complex decisions. It, however, is still developing that feature. But that tiny human is not developing any more of its DNA, it already has that information fully functioning, as a zygote.

That is science.

I'm still not seeing where a fertilized egg is a human being, it's not. Until you can demonstrate that this is the conclusion of the scientific community, and academia in general, this is your own intepretation and view of it.

Now, it's all fine and dandy that you think a human being is one right at conception. This is your view, you're not moving away from this, you interpret the findings of science that way, but exactly what does this have to do with the choice of the woman that nature has given? Because this is evidently where your leading with all this, it goes right down to choice. You think it's wrong, but just how does this change the ability of the woman in question to make her own decision on aborting? It does nothing in my opinion. Arguing whether abortion is right or wrong, whether it's murdering a human being, doesn't take away the fact that it is her body, and the fact that nature still gave her that control over her own body.