Originally posted by soleran30
Yup I could say that about alot of things as well murder, theft, rape, etc etc doesn't make them go away or change them.Anyway you cut it, when done for a purpose other then health reasons third trimester abortions are ending a life. A viable life capable of living with medical treatment. Most times abortions are paid for by tax dollars MY DOLLARS.
Who's trying to make them go away? I said it's none of your business, so stay out of it. Which is exactly what you should do.
I've said before, if your only problem is that you don't want to pay for what you disagree with, fair enough. Would you still make moves to act against these abortions even if you never had to lose a cent/dime whatever on it? Because that would just be selfish.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Who's trying to make them go away? I said it's none of your business, so stay out of it. Which is exactly what you should do.I've said before, if your only problem is that you don't want to pay for what you disagree with, fair enough. Would you still make moves to act against these abortions even if you never had to lose a cent/dime whatever on it? Because that would just be selfish.
-AC
Before I even deliberate further on this are you aware of the development of a fetus thrid trimester? Selfish is willingfully ending the life of a child (thrid trimester can live in a hospital mommy isn't needed)in thrid trimester because you changed your mind. Think about it your a smart guy so don't go calling the kettle black.
Rules were established for abortions far before much understanding went into the development of fetuses. You don't like that well hey thats ok and thats why the law isn't so black and white.
There does come a time when a persons freedoms need to be evaluated as they can infringe upon others which is how I feel about thrid trimester abortions.
Originally posted by sithsaber408
No, yo soy un Christiano.(pero, todo es egual)
El tonto AC estas veinte anos, pero "estoy el primero de intelligencia"... y yo soy "un pendejo Christiano con intelligencia enferma".....
Ijole guey!!!
Pinche pequito mocosmo!
Si guey, Christiano es egual.
Cuanto anos tienes, guey?
Originally posted by soleran30Well.....this is true...
Yup I could say that about alot of things as well murder, theft, rape, etc etc doesn't make them go away or change them.Anyway you cut it, when done for a purpose other then health reasons third trimester abortions are ending a life. A viable life capable of living with medical treatment. Most times abortions are paid for by tax dollars MY DOLLARS.
Originally posted by soleran30
Before I even deliberate further on this are you aware of the development of a fetus thrid trimester? Selfish is willingfully ending the life of a child (thrid trimester can live in a hospital mommy isn't needed)in thrid trimester because you changed your mind. Think about it your a smart guy so don't go calling the kettle black.
Mommy isn't needed, but the hospital isn't exactly empty is it? It has doctors and nurses keeping it alive and tending to its every need.
That said, I'm not PROMOTING these acts. I'm merely saying it's up to her what she wants to do. Zero to do with me.
Originally posted by soleran30
Rules were established for abortions far before much understanding went into the development of fetuses. You don't like that well hey thats ok and thats why the law isn't so black and white.
Murder, and it's definition, is black and white. As is abortion.
The two do not connect nor fit together.
Originally posted by soleran30
There does come a time when a persons freedoms need to be evaluated as they can infringe upon others which is how I feel about thrid trimester abortions.
A woman in the UK has a third trimester abortion, give me reason why you are infringed upon.
Go on.
-AC
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Mommy isn't needed, but the hospital isn't exactly empty is it? It has doctors and nurses keeping it alive and tending to its every need.
Not your place to decide what these professionals should do with their time nor the hospitals if they deem it a priority
"Murder, and it's definition, is black and white. As is abortion.
The two do not connect nor fit together."
Did I use the word murder anywhere in my sentance or description? No of course not now back to the real subject here.
" A woman in the UK has a third trimester abortion, give me reason why you are infringed upon."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnacy_-_3rd_Trimester
The third trimester marks the beginning of viability, which means the fetus can survive if an early natural or induced birth occurs. Because of the possible viability of developed fetus, cultural and legal definitions of life often consider a fetus in the third trimester to be a distinct living person.
your a straight shooter so all these subjective opinions aside there is a scientific one that can be proven and reproduced (ha wow doozie there.) Pretty interesting huh.............a distinct living person huh.
Originally posted by soleran30
Not your place to decide what these professionals should do with their time nor the hospitals if they deem it a priority
You mentioned the baby surviving in a hospital. Why does it survive? The doctors keep it alive by checking on it, feeding it, caring for it. It's not strolling about with a feather in cap.
Originally posted by soleran30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pregnacy_-_3rd_TrimesterThe third trimester marks the beginning of viability, which means the fetus can survive if an early natural or induced birth occurs. Because of the possible viability of developed fetus, cultural and legal definitions of life often consider a fetus in the third trimester to be a distinct living person.
your a straight shooter so all these subjective opinions aside there is a scientific one that can be proven and reproduced (ha wow doozie there.) Pretty interesting huh.............a distinct living person huh.
I know what a third trimester is, that wasn't my question.
So my question was: How does a third trimester in the UK, infringe upon you?
Don't dodge it.
-AC
Originally posted by StyleTime
soleran, some scientists may argue that the fetus is alive and should have rights, BUT does the law agree with it?If the law doesn't believe the fetus has rights, then the mother can still abort.
See I am not so into lets dicuss the law and abortion. I give a shit less most of the time what a bunch of polished politicians do to garner more support for there next election.
This law was written in a time when we knew next to NOTHING about fetus and the development cycle. We know more today about this subject and what was right yesterday doesn't make it right today.
Anyway I am talking about abortions in the third trimester for reasons other then health..............I mean think about it I am hardly saying no abortions I am saying get your head outta your ass to the pregnant woman and if you wanna wait that long to bad you lost your right to choose there is more at stake then your individual freedoms at this point.
"A woman in the UK has a third trimester abortion, give me reason why you are infringed upon."
It infringes upon my morailty and understanding of fetus. Why do you raise a stink on death penalties..................
It doesn't infringe and as such thats something you should clarify in all your discussions that you are refrencing strictly to the UK standpoint. Even then thrid trimester is identified as an individual and don't worry your UK law may catch up to current science definitions in the next decade or so 🙄
Originally posted by soleran30
"A woman in the UK has a third trimester abortion, give me reason why you are infringed upon."It infringes upon my morailty and understanding of fetus. Why do you raise a stink on death penalties..................
It doesn't infringe and as such thats something you should clarify in all your discussions that you are refrencing strictly to the UK standpoint. Even then thrid trimester is identified as an individual and don't worry your UK law may catch up to current science definitions in the next decade or so 🙄
Ahh, so basically, it doesn't actually infringe upon you at all then.
You believe these women should receive punishment because it is against your morals.
Bit silly.
-AC
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Si guey, Christiano es egual.Cuanto anos tienes, guey?
Yo soy un vato nuevo.... yo tiene veinte-tres anos.
(Pero yo soy muy intelligente para el hombre mas nuevo)
For AC or Styletime, or Braddock or anyone else:
(please just read, before responding, as I afford your posts the same courtesy)
WHY CAN'T WE LOVE THEM BOTH
by Dr. and Mrs. J.C. Willke
CHAPTER 10
HUMAN LIFE
Except for the pro-choice argument, there are only two basic questions to be answered when one considers the abortion controversy.
THE FIRST QUESTION IS: When does human life begin?
The controversy swirling about the first question can be explained by the fact that different people use different standards of measurement by which to define "human life." Some would define it through a theologic or religious faith belief. Some would define "human life" using certain philosophic theories and beliefs. Others define "human life" by using biologic, scientific facts. Let us briefly explore the three methods of measurement.
THEOLOGIC OR RELIGIOUS FAITH BELIEF
This is best explained by considering three people who might state their respective beliefs as follows: a) I believe in God. I believe He creates a soul. I believe the soul is created at conception. Therefore, I believe that human Life begins at conception.
b) I also believe in God and a soul but I don’t believe the soul is created until birth (or some other time). Therefore, I believe that human life begins at birth (or some other time).
c) I don’t believe in God or a soul.
Comment
- The above are statements of religious faith or its absence.
- None of the above religious faith beliefs can be factually proven.
- Each individual has a right to his or her own religious beliefs.
PHILOSOPHIC THEORIES
Human life can be defined by using a wide variety of philosophic beliefs and theories. These use social or psychological rationale which can involve biologic mileposts. Examples of philosophic definitions of when human life begins include the following: When there is consciousness; when there is movement; when there is brain function, or a heartbeat; when viable; at birth; when wanted; when there has been an exchange of love; when "humanized"; when this is a person (how-ever "person" is defined); if mentally or physically normal, etc.
Comment
While admittedly arrived at through a certain reasoning process, all of the above remain theories. None can be proven factually by science.
Each individual has a right to hold his own philosophic beliefs.
People of good will can and do differ completely on the correctness of any or all of the philosophic beliefs and theories mentioned.
BIOLOGIC FACTS
Biologic human life is defined by examining the scientific facts of human development. This is a field where there is no controversy, no disagreement. There is only one set of facts, only one embryology book is studied in medical school. The more scientific knowledge of fetal development that has been learned, the more science has confirmed that the beginning of any one human individual’s life, biologically speaking, begins at the completion of the union of his father’s sperm and his mother’s ovum, a process called "conception," "fertilization" or "fecundation." This is so be-cause this being, from fertilization, is alive, human, sexed, complete and growing.
Comment
- The above is not a religious faith belief.
- The above is not a philosophic theory.
- The above is not debatable, not questioned. It is a universally accepted scientific fact.
Note: Detailed biologic facts are in Chapters 11 and 12.
Must the question "when does human life begin" be answered?
If there is one absolutely essential function of a nation or state, it is to protect the lives of those who live within its boundaries. In order to carry out this solemn duty it must first ask and answer when the life of its people begins.
What intellectual discipline, what method of measurement can we (should we) use in making this fateful definition?
The question of when human life begins is a scientific question. Therefore, we should look to scientific facts rather than philosophic theories or religious beliefs for the answer. We must conclude then that each individual human life begins at the beginning, at fertilization, and that human life is a continuum from that time until death.
What simple measure would you use to define Human Life?
We would ask:
Is this being alive? Yes. He has the characteristics of life. That is, he can reproduce his own cells and develop them into a specific pattern of maturity and function. Or more simply, he is not dead.
Is this being human? Yes. This is a unique being, distinguishable totally from any other living organism, completely human in all of his or her characteristics, including the 46 human chromosomes, and can develop only into a fully mature human.
Is this being complete? Yes. Nothing new will be added from the time of union of sperm and egg until the death of the old man or woman except growth and development of what is already there at the beginning. All he needs is time to develop and mature.
But what if a person would still sincerely doubt that this is human life in the womb?
Even if a person did doubt the presence of actual human life in the uterus at a particular time, what would be the fully human way to go? Perhaps a guide would be how we have always treated other human life when there has been a doubt that it exists. Would we not resolve a doubt in favor of life? We do not bury those who are doubtfully dead. We work frantically to help rescue entombed miners, a child lost in the mountains, or a person under a collapsed building. Does a hunter shoot until he knows that it is a deer and not another man? We suggest that the truly human way of thinking would be to give life the benefit of the doubt.
But isn’t "conception" different from "fertilization?"
Ever since its discovery 150 years ago, both words were used to mean the union of sperm and ovum. In the 1960s the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the American College of OB & GYN agreed to attempt to redefine "conception" to mean implantation. "Conception is the implantation of the blastocyst. It is not synonymous with fertilization." E. Hughes, ed., "OB & GYN Terminology," Philadelphia: F. A. Davis,1972
This made it possible to call an intrauterine device a "contraceptive" even though it was an abortifacient (see chapter 29).
But in 1982, lengthy hearings in the U.S. Senate and the two-volume report of the Human Life Bill defined "conception" and used it exclusively to mean the time of union of sperm and ovum. "Human Life Bill," U.S. Senate Common Judiciary, Subcommittee of Separation of Powers, 97th Congress, S-158, April-June 1982, Serial No. J-97-16
This "American" semantic distortion is not accepted in many other nations where "conception," "fertilization," and "fecundation" are all used interchangeably.
But when is it a person?
"Person" is defined in our dictionary in 14 different ways. Yellowstone Park is a person. So is General Motors. So are you. But the Supreme Court of the U.S. in 1857 ruled that black people were not persons, and in 1973 that unborn people were not persons. You answer this question by first inquiring what the questioner means by "a person."
Did Dr. Liley, the "Father of Fetology," think the tiny being was human?
Dr. Liley, who did the first fetal blood transfusion in the womb, said that seven days after fertilization: ". . . the young individual, in command of his environment and destiny with a tenacious purpose, implants in the spongy lining and with a display of physiological power, suppresses his mother’s menstrual period. This is his home for the next 270 days and to make it habitable, the embryo develops a placenta and a protective capsule of fluid for himself. He also solves, single-handed, the homograft problem, that dazzling feat by which foetus and mother, although immunological foreigners who could not exchange skin grafts nor safely receive blood from each other, never the less tolerate each other in parabiosis for nine months.
"We know that he moves with a delightful easy grace in his buoyant world, that foetal comfort deter-mines foetal position. He is responsive to pain and touch and cold and sound and light. He drinks his amniotic fluid, more if it is artificially sweetened, less it if is given an unpleasant taste. He gets hiccups and sucks his thumb. He wakes and sleeps. He gets bored with repetitive signals but can be taught to be alerted by a first signal for a second different one. And, finally, he determines his birthday, for unquestionably, the onset of labour is a unilateral decision of the foetus.
"This, then, is the foetus we know and, indeed, we each once were. This is the foetus we look after in modern obstetrics, the same baby we are caring for be-fore and after birth, who before birth can be ill and need diagnosis and treatment just like any other patient." A. Liley, "A Case Against Abortion," Liberal Studies, Whitcombe & Tombs, Ltd., 1971
Originally posted by soleran30
See I am not so into lets dicuss the law and abortion. I give a shit less most of the time what a bunch of polished politicians do to garner more support for there next election.This law was written in a time when we knew next to NOTHING about fetus and the development cycle. We know more today about this subject and what was right yesterday doesn't make it right today.
Anyway I am talking about abortions in the third trimester for reasons other then health..............I mean think about it I am hardly saying no abortions I am saying get your head outta your ass to the pregnant woman and if you wanna wait that long to bad you lost your right to choose there is more at stake then your individual freedoms at this point.
I am also not saying that I condone late-term abortions and I think women should get it earlier if they really didn't want the baby. However, I actually disagree that there is more at stake than the woman's individual freedoms. Noone's rights are being infringed upon if she gets the abortion, yet her rights are being trampled on if she is forced to have it even in late-term.
Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
Ahh, so basically, it doesn't actually infringe upon you at all then.You believe these women should receive punishment because it is against your morals.
Bit silly.
-AC
Is it now...............I think thiefs, murderers, rapists should be punished.
I don't need an ocean to separate me from the UK to feel that way.
Third trimester abortions should be stopped after a change in the law is established. Which consiquently it can and should be changed to be up to date with current SCIENTIFIC findings.
but as I have always said you can live in your bubble AC and smile as life happens around you in your back and white world 😉
CONT.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS:
Having answered the first question, we now must ask the second one. The first was a question of scientific facts. The second is one of values. It is:
Should all human life be given equal protection under the law, or can certain human lives be discriminated against, and, if so, on what basis?
The charter of the United States, the Declaration of Independence, is guiding here. "All men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, among these are the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
The first right is "life," for without it there are no other rights.
But there are conflicting rights; who is to judge?
The ethical principle is that there is a hierarchy of rights, but that the right to life itself is supreme. There is a right to free speech, but not to shout "fire" in a theater. A man has a right to swing his fist, but that right stops at your nose. We all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, but we cannot achieve it by discriminating against, stealing from, injuring or killing others. Laws enforcing civil rights are of this nature.
Abortion is a civil rights, a human rights issue, and the basic right to life of all humans must be protected. But equal protection?
Every government has the right and duty to protect the lives of all living humans in that nation regardless of degree of dependency, degree of perfection, age, sex, or place of residence (living in or out of the womb). This protection should be guaranteed by its Constitution and should be enforced through due process of law.
The alternative to this is to allow, legislate or adjudicate a system in which there is discrimination against certain classes of living humans. In the case of abortion there is discrimination against an entire class of living humans, on the basis of age (too young) and place of residence (still living in the womb). Such laws created by the U.S. Supreme Court and by other nations’ Parliaments have granted to one living human (the woman) the legal right to kill another (her developing baby) in order to solve her own personal social problem. Should this fatal discrimination against an entire class of living humans continue? That is a question still before each nation, and one that will simply not go away.
A civilization will ultimately be judged by how it treats the smallest, the most dependent, the most innocent among its members. Did that nation cherish, protect, love and nourish them — or kill them?
But what of the pregnant woman?
It should be obvious to everyone that there are two living humans involved: the unborn child and his mother. For this nation to once again protect its unborn babies, but not to do everything humanly possible to help the mother would be immoral. The woman with a problem pregnancy must, at the same time, be offered aid in solving her problems, to help her through that distressing time.
If in fact, her very life is threatened physically, then, the ideal is to save both. But if, in treating her, the fetal baby is lost, such may be an unfortunate result. Your authors have traveled nationally for 30 years lecturing on this subject, and we have yet to hear of a directly induced abortion needed to prevent her death. There are, of course, good reasons to deliver the baby and end her pregnancy in its late months, but here hopefully the baby is saved. Never in late pregnancy is it necessary to directly kill the baby by abortion. If her problem is something less than a threat to her life itself, then we cannot solve it by the ghastly violence of killing another innocent human life. The solutions for helping any individual woman are often many and complex, but they must be found and they must be used. Why can’t we love them both?
Something I didn't know about "Roe" from Roe v.s Wade:
STATES EXCHANGE
Norma McCorvey at Her Best
You've likely heard of the transformation of Norma McCorvey. Norma was Jane Roe in the 1973 US Supreme Court ruling, Roe vs. Wade. Roe, along with its companion case, Doe vs. Bolton, resulted in abortion on demand during all nine months of pregnancy. Since that time over 30 million babies have died from abortion while millions of women and men have suffered the devastating physical and psychological aftermath of that procedure.
Recently Norma experienced a complete change of heart on abortion and converted to Christianity. Her social metamorphosis sent shock waves throughout the ranks of pro-abortion activists and the secular media.
A new video has just been released detailing the events leading up to her conversion. It's called REVERSING ROE: The Norma McCorvey Story and is produced by Donehey & Associates.
While an abortion-rights activist, Norma's public appearances were carefully scripted, sharply limiting her exposure by leaders of the pro-abortion movement. She was considered a "loose cannon" and a poor spokesperson in front of the media. According to McCorvey she was exploited by pro-abortion activists while being treated like a second-class citizen.
It is amazing to see the difference in Norma since her conversion. This is Norman McCorvey at her best. She is articulate, and her appealing what-you-see-is-what-you-get personality is unmistakably sincere. The video debuts her hidden talent as a poet. Her penned lyric describes the climactic moment she became pro-life. It was set to music and sung by Christian singer/songwriter Phil Keaggy, and is part of the video.
Dan Donehey, producer/director of the video, credits Norma's physical transformation to her conversion to Christianity. "Norma's face radiates that change," he said.
The video takes viewers through the dramatic steps leading to her change of heart on abortion. You will witness the heartwarming chain of events that led her to Christianity. And you will be surprised by the ironic twist of events, revealed at the end of the film, that demonstrate how God truly does work in mysterious ways.