Medical Questions > Debate Forums > Abortion Debate Forum

It IS a baby plain and simple. (Page 3)


May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
cmyked wrote:
Hello!

I've been looking around here a little and finally decided to register.

First: Why are you arguing semantics? The unborn is what it is whether or not you call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.

What exactly IS "it"?

1. Human. If you deny this, you're ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.

You kill a human when you abort. Whether you consider it to be a person or not is your own business. But it is a human and it dies. It is not a developed human, but it is a human.

What is it not?

1. Independent. Depending on gestational stage..


It is human, it is not A human.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
lucy315 wrote:
cmyked wrote:

Are there pro-choicers who fight to make abortion legal 'till birth?


I'm gonna jump in here. Smile I certainly can't speak for all pro-choicers, but I'm sure there many who want to make abortion legal until birth. My personal opinion is that once a fetus is viable, I don't agree with aborting it. I know a lot of pro-choicers who feel this way. I actually used to believe in abortion until birth. Then a very close friend of mine gave birth 3 months early. I watched this baby struggle to breath and struggle to survive for 16 days. Sadly, she passed away. Crying or Very sad After that, I changed my view on partial birth abortion.


What exactly is your definition of partial birth abortion?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 1st, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
jujujellybean wrote:


OK:
When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.

And DON'T throw that legal stuff at me. Seriously, SLAVERY was legal and that is now considered wrong. Argue abortion all you want, but leave legality out of it. Was slavery right when it was legal?

And we GET bodily domain by having a body. A fetus does to. And bodily domain is NOT as important as life. Period.


In order to accomplish this you will have to find a way to undo part of the Constitution. You will have to find a way to give half of the population less rights than the other half, and you will have to find a way to give entities that have no rights under the Constitution now, the "unborn", more rights than 100% of the population.

Good luck with that.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
aochriss wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:


OK:
When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.

And DON'T throw that legal stuff at me. Seriously, SLAVERY was legal and that is now considered wrong. Argue abortion all you want, but leave legality out of it. Was slavery right when it was legal?

And we GET bodily domain by having a body. A fetus does to. And bodily domain is NOT as important as life. Period.


In order to accomplish this you will have to find a way to undo part of the Constitution. You will have to find a way to give half of the population less rights than the other half, and you will have to find a way to give entities that have no rights under the Constitution now, the "unborn", more rights than 100% of the population.

Good luck with that.


Thanks. I appreciate it! Very Happy

I would not be giving the unborn more rights. It would simply mean that women would not be able to kill their unborn children, and those unborn children wouldn't be able to kill anyone either; basically, NO KILLING. Not that hard!
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 1st, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
Know what, I am done being nice.

OP: You are completely disrespectful to the opinions of others. You repeatedly ask or imply that we pro choicers have something to "admit" and we do not. Quit acting like you have all the facts and we are all in denial. You think it is a child. Yay, wanna cookie? It doesn't mean we have to think so. Get over yourself.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 2nd, 2008
Experienced User
aochriss wrote:

What exactly is your definition of partial birth abortion?


I guess I would define it as what it is. An abortion (intact D&E) that is preformed on a fetus in the later stages of a pregnancy (possibly up to birth) Why do you ask?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Experienced User
Reptar wrote:
cmyked wrote:
Self defense is the weakest justification for abortion I've ever heard.


It's actually the best I've heard. If a woman will die if forced to gestate, then I think she has one of the best reasons to abort.

That's a completely different situation. We are not discussing medically needed abortions - at least I'm not. If you wish to bring in exceptions, I'm sure there's a very long list.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Experienced User
aochriss wrote:
cmyked wrote:
Hello!

I've been looking around here a little and finally decided to register.

First: Why are you arguing semantics? The unborn is what it is whether or not you call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.

What exactly IS "it"?

1. Human. If you deny this, you're ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.

You kill a human when you abort. Whether you consider it to be a person or not is your own business. But it is a human and it dies. It is not a developed human, but it is a human.

What is it not?

1. Independent. Depending on gestational stage..


It is human, it is not A human.

Semantics. Try again.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
lucy315 wrote:
aochriss wrote:

What exactly is your definition of partial birth abortion?


I guess I would define it as what it is. An abortion (intact D&E) that is preformed on a fetus in the later stages of a pregnancy (possibly up to birth) Why do you ask?


Because it is not done "possibly up to birth". I can see why you would think that, though, and that is the reason the anti-choice congress members named the bill banning intact D &E "Partial Birth", to insinuate that it is an abortion done during "birth".

The term partial birth abortion (pba) is not recognized by the medical establishment. It is completely made-up. An intact D & E cannot be done any later than any other form of abortion. It has nothing to do with the time frame of when an abortion is done.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
2ccapezza wrote:
aochriss wrote:
cmyked wrote:
Hello!

I've been looking around here a little and finally decided to register.

First: Why are you arguing semantics? The unborn is what it is whether or not you call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.

What exactly IS "it"?

1. Human. If you deny this, you're ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.

You kill a human when you abort. Whether you consider it to be a person or not is your own business. But it is a human and it dies. It is not a developed human, but it is a human.

What is it not?

1. Independent. Depending on gestational stage..


It is human, it is not A human.

Semantics. Try again.


Actually, I don't have to "try again", as there is an actual, factual difference between using the term human as a noun verses as an adjective.

My finger is human, my lung is human, but neither could be referred to "a human".
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Here is an example of when an intact D&E (partial birth abortion) was deemed necessary by a woman's doctor:

"During an ultrasound, the physician became very silent. My husband reassured me that we could deal with whatever was wrong. We had talked about raising a child with disabilities. We were willing to take whatever God gave us. My doctor informed me that they did not expect our baby to live. She was unable to absorb any amniotic fluid and it was puddling into my uterus. This poor precious child had a lethal neurological disorder and had been unable to move for almost two months. The movements I had been feeling had been nothing more than bubbles and fluid." Both Coreen and her husband were anti-abortion and terminating her pregnancy was not an option. "I wanted her to come on God's time. I did not want to interfere." However, as the pregnancy progressed, doctors discovered that the baby was "stuck in a transverse position. Due to swelling, her head was already larger than that of a full-term baby. Natural birth or induced labor was not possible. I considered a caesarean section, but experts at Cedars-Sinai Hospital were adamant that the risks to my health.were too great...the doctors all agreed that our only option was the intact D&E procedure." The procedure left Coreen well enough to become pregnant again. She since has given birth to a healthy son."
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
jujujellybean wrote:
aochriss wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:


OK:
When a woman has sex she makes that choice with her body. SHE decides she will do that and run the risk. If she gets pregnant, she now has a new life inside her, and you can throw out all the reasons you want but NONE of them are good enough to kill someone! Most people are dependant on someone else.

And DON'T throw that legal stuff at me. Seriously, SLAVERY was legal and that is now considered wrong. Argue abortion all you want, but leave legality out of it. Was slavery right when it was legal?

And we GET bodily domain by having a body. A fetus does to. And bodily domain is NOT as important as life. Period.


In order to accomplish this you will have to find a way to undo part of the Constitution. You will have to find a way to give half of the population less rights than the other half, and you will have to find a way to give entities that have no rights under the Constitution now, the "unborn", more rights than 100% of the population.

Good luck with that.


Thanks. I appreciate it! Very Happy

I would not be giving the unborn more rights. It would simply mean that women would not be able to kill their unborn children, and those unborn children wouldn't be able to kill anyone either; basically, NO KILLING. Not that hard!


I realize that you think it would be that simple, but it would not. There are real rights, protections, guarantees included in our Constitution's Bill of Rights that will have to be over turned in order for your wish to become reality.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Active User, very eHealthy
aochriss wrote:
cmyked wrote:
Hello!

I've been looking around here a little and finally decided to register.

First: Why are you arguing semantics? The unborn is what it is whether or not you call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.

What exactly IS "it"?

1. Human. If you deny this, you're ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.

You kill a human when you abort. Whether you consider it to be a person or not is your own business. But it is a human and it dies. It is not a developed human, but it is a human.

What is it not?

1. Independent. Depending on gestational stage..


It is human, it is not A human.


It's not a body part like an organ or limb. It is a fetal human, or a human in it's fetal stage. When it is born, it's DNA or species does not change. It is the same human that was in the womb.

So, I say it IS a human.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
You are more than welcome to call it anything you want. Definitions are all man made., anyway, so all of this is arbitrary. Currently, the definitions of both human being and person are born entities, not unborn. Even the scientific designation of Homo Sapien is of a born entity, not an unborn. However, scientific classification is also man-made.

One reason a fertilized egg is not considered a human being, or more accurately a Homo Sapien, is that a fertilized egg, or zygote, is a single cell. Humans are not single celled animals, we are multi celled animals. A single cell could not even meet the definition of a mammal, which human beings of course are.

Please read the following communication with a biologist for more information:

Expert: Dana Krempels, Ph.D.
Date: 7/31/2007
Subject: Classification of Homo Sapien cells as HS themselves

Question
QUESTION: Hi,
I'm doing research on biological identity and wanted to clarify whether different humans cells can be considered Homo sapiens themselves? To me Homo Sapeins is a colonial organism with a life cycle that includes a single cell stage. Therefore only the zygote and the colonial stages are Homo sapiens, while individual cells sex, skin and blood cells etc aren’t Homo Sapiens.

It would be helpful if phenotypes regarding Homo Sapiens was also cleared up.

I’ve also had it put that cells themselves are considered just another phenotype of Homo Sapiens, so just as gender or a human with blonde hair are phenotypes so are zygotes or sex cells phenotypes of Homo sapiens. To me this doesn’t make sense, there may be phenotypes of types of cells but to conflate that with phenotypes of Homo sapiens runs into the same problem as above.

Can you help clear this up?


ANSWER: Dear Simon,

I don't know any biologist who would classify a single cell from a Homo sapiens as a Homo sapiens.  Even a zygote, which may have the *potential* to become a Homo sapiens, but is not an organism by any stretch of the imagination, is not considered an individual Homo sapiens by any members of the scientific community that I know.

A colonial organism is defined as one being composed of loosely organized cells, sometimes with a division of labor.  In many truly colonial organisms (e.g., Volvox; some would include sponges), the cells can survive on their own, when taken out of the colony, and even undergo mitosis to produce a new colony (without the help of cloning technology).  So in the strictest, biological sense, no eumetazoan (including a human) is a colonial organism.  

An organism that exhibits *true multicellularity* (as opposed to being colonial) is defined as one composed of various types of cells that are coordinated to perform particular functions by organizing into organs and organ systems.  The individual cells cannot survive for long outside the whole organism.

I do not believe the scientific community in general considers a zygote, blastula or gastrula containing the human genome to be a Homo sapiens.  To a biologist, those cells or conglomerations of cells have only the *potential* to become human.  This may be a matter of debate in social and political circles, but not in serious scientific ones.


http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Cla ssification-Homo-Sapien-cells-1.htm


For my own interest, when you say, "If we do for them it calls into question some current thinking on biological classification of zygotes etc."

...are you aware of any biological classification of zygotes? I've actually not heard of anyone even discussing whether a zygote is an individual organism or not--with the notable exception of Homo sapiens zygotes when it come to arguments about abortion rights.

But no other species I know of is considered an individual organism at the zygote stage, which makes me wonder why Homo sapiens should be considered any different from them. We differ from other species only in degree, and not in kind.


http://en.allexperts.com/q/Biology-664/Cla ssification-Homo-Sapien-cells-1.htm
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 2nd, 2008
Experienced User
Right, you're really intelligent. Let's hope you keep your legs closed.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 3rd, 2008
Experienced User
Jude-Love wrote:
Know what, I am done being nice.

OP: You are completely disrespectful to the opinions of others. You repeatedly ask or imply that we pro choicers have something to "admit" and we do not. Quit acting like you have all the facts and we are all in denial. You think it is a child. Yay, wanna cookie? It doesn't mean we have to think so. Get over yourself.


Geez. Anger management issues?

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM where that is the point: to debate abortion. If you don't want to, leave. No one is stopping you. We are debating abortion and the issue you are talking about. Wanna cookie? Go get one and stop complaining about something that you have no control over.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 3rd, 2008
Experienced User
aochriss wrote:
2ccapezza wrote:
aochriss wrote:
cmyked wrote:
Hello!

I've been looking around here a little and finally decided to register.

First: Why are you arguing semantics? The unborn is what it is whether or not you call it a baby, a child, or a fetus.

What exactly IS "it"?

1. Human. If you deny this, you're ignoring the scientific facts.
2. Alive. Again, biological fact.

You kill a human when you abort. Whether you consider it to be a person or not is your own business. But it is a human and it dies. It is not a developed human, but it is a human.

What is it not?

1. Independent. Depending on gestational stage..


It is human, it is not A human.

Semantics. Try again.


Actually, I don't have to "try again", as there is an actual, factual difference between using the term human as a noun verses as an adjective.

My finger is human, my lung is human, but neither could be referred to "a human".

Would you like to discuss the English language, or abortion? If you'd like to discuss the former, please take it elsewhere. As far as I can tell this is the Abortion Debate forum, not the English Debate forum.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

replied May 5th, 2008
Experienced User
Re: It IS a baby plain and simple.
[quote="jujujellybean"][quote="aochriss"]
j ujujellybean wrote:


I would not be giving the unborn more rights. It would simply mean that women would not be able to kill their unborn children, and those unborn children wouldn't be able to kill anyone either; basically, NO KILLING. Not that hard!


Of course you would be giving embryos and fetuses more rights than adult women. In what circumstance other than pregnancy can someone be put at physical risk to benefit another?

Gestating will never be as safe as abortion. Too much can go wrong. Most pregnant women are willing to take the risk. But some are not, and that is their right under the Constitution that you seem to have no regard for. Do the words "life, liberty, or property" ring a bell?
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 5th, 2008
Extremely eHealthy
jujujellybean wrote:

Geez. Anger management issues?

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM where that is the point: to debate abortion. If you don't want to, leave. No one is stopping you. We are debating abortion and the issue you are talking about. Wanna cookie? Go get one and stop complaining about something that you have no control over.


Which brings us back around to your motivation about what women do regarding their personal, private medical decisions.
|
Did you find this post helpful?

User Profile
replied May 5th, 2008
Experienced User
Birch wrote:
jujujellybean wrote:

Geez. Anger management issues?

THIS IS A PUBLIC FORUM where that is the point: to debate abortion. If you don't want to, leave. No one is stopping you. We are debating abortion and the issue you are talking about. Wanna cookie? Go get one and stop complaining about something that you have no control over.


Which brings us back around to your motivation about what women do regarding their personal, private medical decisions.


Sheesh. What is it with people here? I don't want to control her. I have no reason to. I don't know who she is or anything. She told me to 'get over it.' Isn't that controlling me? I think so.
|
Did you find this post helpful?