The rights of the Unborn still a "hot potato"!

[Praxius]

As far as I am concerned no-one should have the right to deny the rights of a human fetus to develop into a complete human except the mother and/or the physician who is concerned about the life of the mother.

Agreed.... although perhaps I believe the potiential father should also have some kind of input on the matter as well..... but the mother holds most of the cards, as it's her body and her health which is directly in question.

Anyone else should keep their nose in their own business. Harm coming to a human fetus would probably also harm the mother of the fetus.

As to whether a human fetus is human or not, what else could it be? It certainly wouldn't be amoeba, aardvark, alder, or Andean duck.

You're right.... it's a fetus.... just as before it becomes a fetus, it's a zygote... they have names of identification for a reason, which is that they are not human and require some form of identification based on what is developed.

This is a mountain made from a molehill, IMO, and a bit dumb, too.

Agreed.... although perhaps from different reasons.

 

[Praxius]

:angry3: Ah, this thread, started by a luddite, munky2 is getting a bit tedious, going nowhere but round and round as does most of the "so and so is in deeeeeeeeeeeeep trouble" threads.

All we do is change the colour of the troll and the direction of the boat.

Time for coffee. Maybe a timbit.

num num

:tongue8:

Well by all means, get involved and steer it back on track..... either that or deal with it. People are asking ligitamate questions to other members that they seem to want answers for, I am being asked questions, therefore I will answer.

The original portion of the topic has been debated and discussed, which has now evolved to this.... if you like to get it back to the original topic of the politics within the Abortion debate, by all means, present a question and/or comment in regards to it, and I, at least, will be more then happy to address it.

 

[karrie]

...which is that they are not human and require some form of identification based on what is developed....

By scientific definition, they ARE human Prax. They just aren't viable humans yet, or persons under the law. But they most definitely are human.

 

[talloola]

Even though I am OK, with 'early' abortions, I have to agree that the embryo is human,
as we haven't come to that point yet, where we are producing anything else,( I hope);-)

 

[Praxius]

By scientific definition, they ARE human Prax. They just aren't viable humans yet, or persons under the law. But they most definitely are human.

They are the processes of getting and developing into human, have Human DNA, human physical characteristics, but are not 100% complete/completed humans, therefore, I don't believe they should be given full or any human rights, no more then a human finger by itself should be given human rights.... in my view, they are only an extension of the potiential mother, just like any other organ within the body.

 

[Tonington]

Tumor, Tomato... it's all the same, and they all grow, just with different desired effects, just because you like one over the other doesn't change anything.

Tumors and tomatoes are not the same thing at all.

What I stated is still correct, as a "Single Diploid Cell" is still a single cell.... what's your point?

An ovum is not a diploid cell. It's haploid. My point was you don't know what you're talking about. An egg or sperm is not a human, they're one half of what makes a human.

And Chromosomes alone do not mean life.... it is simply a step towards it.

There is no life without chromosomes. They are required, they aren't a step.

As do I, however none of your options above match my position, nor are they positive explinations of "Human Life" only stages with lead up to it.

Umm, option A seems to fit.

One step at a time.

Hey, you asked the rhetorical question in the first place.

And yet, dolphins hold far more humanoid traits, intelligence, etc. then a fetus.... yet they deserve less rights then a blob of human-look-a-like meat in a womb?

You mean a developing human in the womb. And yes, that's the way of the world right now. I never said deserve, though I'm sure many people would use that word.

No, you misunderstood.... they have already started their lives, have already been registered as a "Citizen" and their individuality exists.... there is an existing life to save, with a fetus, nothing has started except development towards life.

So, life depends on a piece of paper now? You move goal posts more than any other poster I've ever seen here...A fetus is an existing life. It exists in the mother. It's growing. It's living matter. Cells, DNA, tissue forming, organ growing, metabolically active... What is that if not alive?

 

[dancing-loon]

It's a pair of shoes until it can make it's way out of the host and survive away from that host. Then it has all the rights and privilege you and I enjoy. Until then, it's property and within certain rules it can be dealt with accordingly.

Fact is that this very divisive subject being tossed into the mix is nothing more than, as Nuggler points out, a smoke screen. So why get all caught up in a non-issue while there are so many legitimate issues just waiting for adoption by informed voters?

Hi, Unforgiven;
I'm a little naive and wonder what "smoke screen" you are talking about? What is behind that smoke screen? I'm standing here free and open - I have nothing to hide. Or do you mean the government is trying to hide some other issues? Please, give an example.

 

[dancing-loon]

...Everything the fetus is, has been taken and extracted 100% from the "to be mother" hince, is part of the Mother, therefore, she still should have every right to make the decisions that affect her directly.... the fetus secondary.

Yes, I agree with that! If she kills her own flesh that is o.k.!

I own a house, it's paid for with my own money. I now don't want it anymore, so I put a match to it and burn it down. It's my right... I own it. Will I be charged and sued?

I also own that piece of land where the house sits on. It's mine! I feel like destroying it, so I detonate a bomb on it and create a large crater... nothing else around it got harmed in any way.
Will I be charged? Send to the mental institution or jail? Perhaps they will applaud me?

I also own my body, but am not pregnant. I decide to commit suicide, so I stand in the middle of the park and put myself on fire. Will they all stand around and watch? Or will they stop me? I own myself so, let me be. I like to do these destructive things, and I will keep on doing it. If the man who destroys developing babies is a hero, then I should also be celebrated for exercising my right as a free human being, right?

Praxi, what I want to demonstrate is that there is such a thing as a collective, societal conscience with a sense of responsibility that steps in if the individual commits harmful acts again and again. In the case of abortions our collective society has decided to step aside and allow the individual free reign to do as he/she pleases.

Your argument there is no soul, no spirit involved in an abortion, because according to you the spirit enters the body only after birth. Where do you think that spirit has been all those nine months?

You also state you have observed that the baby comes out of the womb like a limp noodle, doesn't breathe until it is forced to do so. And only then does the non-soul spirit take possession of that limp noodle, and BINGO... it's a human being!!:lol:
Like some magic that noodle turns into a breathing, crying human being! But it does not have a soul! Are you really sure of that, Praxi?;-) That would mean you don't have a soul, either! Are you soulless? No emotions, no warmth of the heart... just a bare intellect with bare facts!!
I shudder!8O

 

[Unforgiven]

Hi, Unforgiven;
I'm a little naive and wonder what "smoke screen" you are talking about? What is behind that smoke screen? I'm standing here free and open - I have nothing to hide. Or do you mean the government is trying to hide some other issues? Please, give an example.

Sup D to the Lizoon;

No not you, the government.

Shouldn't we be talking about issues that will actually have some barring on the direction our country takes over the next four years? Or even the things that have happened during this sitting of the house. Afghanistan, the North, budget cuts and the economy, corruption in government, the environment.

Abortion ha! Let's talk about equal rights too and maybe if we have some time we can talk about Quebec separation. You see, a smoke screen.

 

[Praxius]

Tumors and tomatoes are not the same thing at all.

It was a figure of speech, moving on....

An ovum is not a diploid cell. It's haploid. My point was you don't know what you're talking about. An egg or sperm is not a human, they're one half of what makes a human.

It's irrelevent what you think I know or don't.... none of what you are saying identifies anyting prior to birth as being a living, breathing, thinking human, plain and simple. None of it justifies giving rights to a fetus, a zygote, a diploid or a friggin haploid.

If they are all what you considder as a "Human" then what identification are we right now? Human, last I checked.... yet I don't see some identification of this current stage of our lives such as zygote, fetus, diploid or diplidocous for that matter.

The identifications, classifications are all set, confirmed, accepted for quite sometime now.... I see no justification for trying to reinvent the wheel due to unfounded emotional appeal.

There is no life without chromosomes. They are required, they aren't a step.

Irrelevent, basic life, full life, whatever has no reasoning to be placing basic human rights on it, unless it is a living human being.... and I have yet to see any proof or evidence about a fetus being anymore alive then an additional organ in the woman's body, regardless if it may operate differently then any other organ.... hell, the heart doesn't work or operate the same as the brain or kidneys.... I see nothing special about the fetus.

Umm, option A seems to fit.

For you as well then, because you're trying to give human rights to a chunk of meat.

Hey, you asked the rhetorical question in the first place.

Because it was indeed rhetorical, which means I am not actually seeking an answer, but rather making a generic point.

You mean a developing human in the womb.

Whichever way you wish to call it.... but by your direct words quoted above "Developing Human" clearly explains that it is in development of becoming a Human.... therefore isn't actually a human now is it? My position still stands.

So, life depends on a piece of paper now?

Much of what we classify around us in the universe is written down on paper and accepted through explinations and understanding, how else do we learn things in college, university, school, etc... without text books.... they are commonly accepted explinations of the world around us, and I wasn't the one who originally brought the whole "Citizen" equation to the argument, I am just using it as one, among many other examples.

You move goal posts more than any other poster I've ever seen here...

No, you just can't wrap your head on all the angles in which I cover at once.... that's not my fault.... keep up.

A fetus is an existing life.

No it's not... saying so, doesn't make it so.... as explained before, it uses all resources, blood, energy, food, etc. all through the mother, not by itself.... it is therefore an extension of the potiential mother.

It exists in the mother. It's growing. It's living matter. Cells, DNA, tissue forming, organ growing, metabolically active... What is that if not alive?

No different from an organ or a parasite as already explained..... these circles are getting about as much fun as a plain doughnut.

 

[dancing-loon]

No it doesn't feel pain.... there would have to be a consciousness for that to occur, and since I believe there isn't one until birth, then it would stand to be logical that it also does not feel pain.

Everytime I've ever seen a birth, be that natural or C-Section, they pull the baby out limp as a noodle, and doesn't exert any motion, sound or breathing until breathing is induced.... so to me, I don't see any life.... certainly not Human life..... and certainly no consciousness.

So, my soulless friend, here is something you should read very carefully and inhale the facts deeeeeply, so they will stay with your spirit for the rest of your life!;-);-)

"Scientific evidence suggests abortion is excruciatingly painful for the unborn child."
Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

"An unborn child (noodle?) at 20 weeks gestation is fully capable of experiencing pain... Without question, (abortion) is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."
Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D. professor of neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/FetalPain091604.pdf
--------------------------------------------------------------
Was Mr. Morgentaler actually a real doctor? Did he not know this?

 

[Praxius]

Yes, I agree with that! If she kills her own flesh that is o.k.!

I own a house, it's paid for with my own money. I now don't want it anymore, so I put a match to it and burn it down. It's my right... I own it. Will I be charged and sued?

Probably because it would become an uncontrolled fire, which would put others at potiential risk, as well as require the fire department to come out and put it out, wasting tax payers' dollars.

I also own that piece of land where the house sits on. It's mine! I feel like destroying it, so I detonate a bomb on it and create a large crater... nothing else around it got harmed in any way.
Will I be charged? Send to the mental institution or jail? Perhaps they will applaud me?

Do you pay property taxes?

Regardless, the above explination of burning down the house, would also apply with blowing up your property, as it puts the surrounding community at risk.

I also own my body, but am not pregnant. I decide to commit suicide, so I stand in the middle of the park and put myself on fire. Will they all stand around and watch? Or will they stop me? I own myself so, let me be.

If that was your wish, then I'd let you burn..... it is not my place to tell others what they can or can not do with their own bodies and life. I'd probably walk away though, because burning human flesh isn't the greatest smell in the world, and it's a bugger to get out of your clothes.

I like to do these destructive things, and I will keep on doing it. If the man who destroys developing babies is a hero, then I should also be celebrated for exercising my right as a free human being, right?

So long as you don't put other "Living" humans in harms way, knock yourself out.

Praxi, what I want to demonstrate is that there is such a thing as a collective, societal conscience with a sense of responsibility that steps in if the individual commits harmful acts again and again.

There might be a moral obligation, but there is not a legal obligation, unless you pose a risk to others around you. I can let you set yourself on fire in the middle of the park and watch you burn, but I won't be going to jail for not stopping you.

As my own example.... let's say that I am in a bus, which hits something, flips and rolls down a ditch and lands on it's side, breaks the feul line and there is little time before the bus catches fire and explodes. Myself, wishing to survive and continue living, I will probably take charge (As would a few others I would imagine) and I would start kicking out windows and opening emergency exits, and helping people to get out of the wreck. If there was someone in the way and not moving and was too damn scared to do anything, then I'd tell them to at least get their sorry asses out of the way so that others can live, and if not, then I'd knock the shat out of them in order to save more lives and let their asses burn.

Then again, I could just bust out a window and get out on my own, leaving everybody else to fend for themselves..... survival of the fittest, and me doing this, I can not be charged or arrested for not helping.... it's not my job to do so. I may have a moral obligation to help, but I don't have a legal obligation to help..... only I can make the decision to help others and risk my own life, or just save my own life.

In the case of abortions our collective society has decided to step aside and allow the individual free reign to do as he/she pleases.

Which they have every right to do so.... it is their body, their health. First come, first serve, the pregnant woman was on this planet first, the fetus hasn't even stepped foot on it..... she get's the decision, not the fetus, not you, not I, and not anybody else except her.

Your argument there is no soul, no spirit involved in an abortion, because according to you the spirit enters the body only after birth. Where do you think that spirit has been all those nine months?

Where is your soul/spirit when you die? If you have the answer for that, then you have the answer to your own question.

You also state you have observed that the baby comes out of the womb like a limp noodle, doesn't breathe until it is forced to do so. And only then does the non-soul spirit take possession of that limp noodle, and BINGO... it's a human being!!:lol:

Correct, if you wish to have a technical+spiritual explination of it.

Like some magic that noodle turns into a breathing, crying human being!

There's all kinds of magical things we can not explain yet.... why not? It's about as plausable as any other explination, because any other explination can not be proven one way or another.

But it does not have a soul! Are you really sure of that, Praxi?;-)

Just as sure as anybody else with their own theories that can not be directly proven.

That would mean you don't have a soul, either! Are you soulless? No emotions, no warmth of the heart... just a bare intellect with bare facts!!
I shudder!8O

No, because you are mixing up my explination, as I stated before, this soul/spirit factor doesn't come into play until you are breathing and living on your own, cut from the mother and independantly operating by your own blood supply, organs and brain.

you and I have a soul/spirit now, but before you and I took that first breath, we didn't.

 

[karrie]

No it doesn't feel pain.... there would have to be a consciousness for that to occur, and since I believe there isn't one until birth, then it would stand to be logical that it also does not feel pain.

Everytime I've ever seen a birth, be that natural or C-Section, they pull the baby out limp as a noodle, and doesn't exert any motion, sound or breathing until breathing is induced.... so to me, I don't see any life.... certainly not Human life..... and certainly no consciousness.

Oh my goodness. You really should do more scientific research about what a fetus is doing in the womb, how they react to stimuli, how their brain patterns have been mapped, etc.

 

[Praxius]

So, my soulless friend, here is something you should read very carefully and inhale the facts deeeeeply, so they will stay with your spirit for the rest of your life!;-);-)

Perhaps you should wait for a response for your souless question, before you start labeling me as souless. (See previous post)

"Scientific evidence suggests abortion is excruciatingly painful for the unborn child."

Dr. Paul Ranalli, neurologist, University of Toronto

And as proven countless times in the past, Scientific Evidence can and will be wrong, depending on the interpretation of the individual.

"An unborn child (noodle?) at 20 weeks gestation is fully capable of experiencing pain... Without question, (abortion) is a dreadfully painful experience for any infant subjected to such a surgical procedure."

Robert J. White, M.D., Ph.D. professor of neurosurgery, Case Western Reserve University.

http://www.nrlc.org/abortion/Fetal_Pain/FetalPain091604.pdf

This guy needs to also get a brain, as he first has to prove there is a consciousness present to receive those signals. The body is in the process of development, organs, nerves, senses, etc.... hince my previous explination of muscle twitches and movement during pregnancy.... which could be nothing more then development reactions.... consciousness doesn't need to be present for this.

The moment it can be proven there is a consciousness, then I will correct my position.... until then, I still hold to my own personal beliefs.

--------------------------------------------------------------
Was Mr. Morgentaler actually a real doctor? Did he not know this?

He probably knew this, I already knew this years ago as well.... it doesn't prove anything, nor change the situation.

 

[Praxius]

Oh my goodness. You really should do more scientific research about what a fetus is doing in the womb, how they react to stimuli, how their brain patterns have been mapped, etc.

Then by all means, fill me with your vast knowlege. Prove to me there is a consciousness.

 

[Nuggler]

Quoting Praxius:"Well by all means, get involved and steer it back on track..... either that or deal with it. People are asking ligitamate questions to other members that they seem to want answers for, I am being asked questions, therefore I will answer."


Didn't say it was off the track, Praxius, just said it was gettin tedious; and of course you're free to answer any questions you want. 8O That wasn't me peein in your cornflakes, honest.

Ah me. Forget the coffee; pass the gin.

 

[Kreskin]

Here is a great tool for recognizing fetal development over time.

If you click retrieval/ovulation then put in today's date that is equivalent to conceiving today. It will provide a number of key dates in development.

And yes, someone who conceives today is really considered 2 weeks pregnant.

http://www.ivf.ca/calcu.htm

 

[dancing-loon]

Sup D to the Lizoon;

No not you, the government.

Shouldn't we be talking about issues that will actually have some barring on the direction our country takes over the next four years? Or even the things that have happened during this sitting of the house. Afghanistan, the North, budget cuts and the economy, corruption in government, the environment.

Abortion ha! Let's talk about equal rights too and maybe if we have some time we can talk about Quebec separation. You see, a smoke screen.

Yes, I see! Thank you. (whatever D to the Lizoon means!:roll:}

I still feel the abortion issue is far from solved satisfactorily. It is about our own children! About our future. If that is not important, I'd like to know what is!!!

Oh yes,... our barely grown-up children killing and getting killed in Afghanistan is second in the line of importance!

If women should have the freedom to destroy their unborn with the help of willing doctors, then there can be no argument about Quebecers wanting to exercise that same right to self-determination!

Sure, your list of other issues are also all important, but none as urgent as abortion. That is my humble opinion.;-)

 

[karrie]

Any mother who's ever read even the most rudimentary information on what's going on with the fetus knows that they feel, hear, taste, and before birth. They avoid pressure, scooting out of the way of doppler equipment and ultrasound devices. They sleep, and they wake.

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/tul/psychtoday9809.html

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLIFE/zunbrnsns.HTM

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sleepdreams/experts/garfield_05.html

 

[Socrates the Greek]

Freedom of choice is the mothers business if a mistake pregnancy is present; the rest is no ones business. If a prolifer feels that they have a say in someone else’s business such as telling a 14 year old girl to keep a baby which she has no interest in keeping and no experience in taking care of it, the bottom line is stop getting involved in other peoples business. You don’t believe in abortion GREAT FOR YOU, BUT STOP TRYING TO TELL THE 14 YEAR OLD GIRL WHAT TO DO, PARTICULARLY WHEN NEITHER ONE OF YOU PROFILERS GIVE TWO SH!TS ABOUT KIDS WHO ARE CONSTANTLY ABUSED ON DYSFUNCTIONAL FOSTER HOMES. Get it through your stubborn heads, YOU DON’T HAVE THE RIGHT TO TELL ANY ONE TO DO AS YOU LIKE!!!!!!!:angryfire::angryfire::angryfire::roll::roll::roll: