Even at full term and after having taken their first breath with their own lungs, some don't make it. Life doesn't come with any guarantees. But the point is, at 28 weeks the fetus is developed enough to live outside the womb. That is a scientific fact.
I really find this interesting. What is so magical about the fetus taking its first breath that you grant it no rights until then? Why would you (I assume) find it so abhorrent to crush the skull of a living premature baby, yet five minutes earlier, while still in the womb, you would have no reservations in doing the same thing? The only reason the fetus is not breathing on its own is because it's entrapped in an embryonic sack full of fluid. It's not for lack of capability. What I want is to protect our most basic and precious human right - the right to live. I do not wish to dictate to a woman what she can or can not do, but once the fetus has become viable I see no way to avoid it. For you I guess it's a case of 'out of sight, out of mind'. Turn a blind eye to it and just kill the parasite. I've seen too many premature babies in my time to willingly accept this philosophy. I guess our priorities are different. On Feb 18, 3:14 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > Your key word there is "considered".... some live some don't. You do > indeed wish to tell the woman that at 28 weeks she has no decision in > the matter. I simply say that until that embryo takes its first breath > all the "rights" are the mothers. > > > > On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 1:51 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Mark, > > I honestly have no idea why you feel the mother has the right to > > determine when life exists. Life is not arbitrary and it's not at the > > discretion of the mother. At 28 weeks the fetus is considered viable. > > That means it can survive on it's own outside the womb. What evidence > > would you present to argue the fetus is not a living human at this > > point? > > > Mrs. Rabbit, > > I have no interest in telling a woman what to do with her body. I do, > > however, have an interest in protecting human life. These goals are > > not mutually exclusive. > > > On Feb 18, 1:45 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> She is factually correct only if you believe in the premise.... which > >> I do not. An embryo is not human, a chicken is not a chicken until > >> hatched... ad nauseum. > > >> A Human embryo is not "life" unless the mother says so. Once it has > >> drawn breath it is a different story. > > >> On Wed, Feb 18, 2009 at 12:28 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > As do I. But I don't believe you can support the rights of one human > >> > at the expense of another. Attempting to portray an unborn fetus as > >> > something less than human (i.e., a parasite) makes this debate easier, > >> > but it's scientifically incorrect. At 28 weeks the fetus is legally > >> > viable and must be considered a human being. Prior to 28 weeks the > >> > debate gets fuzzier, and since I support a policy of compromise, I > >> > tend to not argue that aspect of abortion. > > >> > The point of debate in this thread was the claim that the 12 year old > >> > girl was factually incorrect and I don't believe anyone has made that > >> > case yet. > > >> > On Feb 18, 12:11 pm, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> No, I simply support the womans right over her body and all that is > >> >> contained there-in. I support the SAME for men. It is called fairness. > > >> >> On 2/18/09, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > Thanks professor, but I'm quite familiar with what parasites are. I > >> >> > did not 'need' to look it up, but on this board it's usually helpful > >> >> > to provide a reference to support your claim. You might very well find > >> >> > a classification that can be applied to a human fetus, but let's be > >> >> > clear; a parasite is typically of a different species than its host, > >> >> > it usually can not survive without its host and it is typically > >> >> > harmful in some way to its host. There are exceptions to all of these > >> >> > characteristics, but when discussing parasites in animals these are > >> >> > the accepted norms. > > >> >> > A human fetus is considered legally viable at 28 weeks of development. > >> >> > It is parasitic in nature because it is sharing the mother's > >> >> > bloodstream for nutrition and oxygen. It does this because it has no > >> >> > other means to eat and breathe while constrained in the womb. It is, > >> >> > however, a living human being that can now survive on it's own outside > >> >> > the womb. > > >> >> > You know damn well that classifying a human fetus as a parasite is a > >> >> > deliberate attempt by the abortion rights crowd to diminish the value > >> >> > of the fetus. People don't take kindly to killing human beings, but > >> >> > eliminating parasites is always acceptable. > > >> >> > On Feb 18, 12:55 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> > > Use a biological dictionary. There are Three (3) very different > >> >> > > types of > >> >> > > parasites and several very different crosses of those three main > >> >> > > groups. You > >> >> > > have found the "common" definition. Do try to do some homework. It > >> >> > > is simple > >> >> > > junior high school biology. But then the US schools do lack, don't > >> >> > > they > >> >> > > ?? Not my fault but definitely a problem for you, I can say that, > >> >> > > as you > >> >> > > obviously had to look it up and did not know enough to do so > >> >> > > correctly. In > >> >> > > the future if you are going to choose to argue a point at least > >> >> > > please be > >> >> > > rudimentarily informed on the subject or ask for assistance. > > >> >> > > On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 11:41 PM, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > From dictionary.com: "an organism that lives on or in an organism > >> >> > > > of > >> >> > > > another species, known as the host, from the body of which it > >> >> > > > obtains > >> >> > > > nutriment." > > >> >> > > > The mother does not define what a fetus is. Science defines what > >> >> > > > it is > >> >> > > > and it is parasitic, but not a parasite. > > >> >> > > > I don't need to consult the mother. It's 'definition' does not > >> >> > > > vary > >> >> > > > from mother to mother. She can apply whatever label she wants but > >> >> > > > it > >> >> > > > does not change the facts. > > >> >> > > > And I am not going any extra steps. I am sticking to the facts. > >> >> > > > If a 5 > >> >> > > > month old fetus is delivered you would call it a human. Therefore, > >> >> > > > unless you can prove physiological changes took place during > >> >> > > > delivery > >> >> > > > we must assume the 5 month old fetus still in the womb is human as > >> >> > > > well. The little girl is correct. > > >> >> > > > On Feb 17, 11:50 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > >> >> > > > > No, it is the Mothers choice as to what it is. It is a parasite > >> >> > > > > by > >> >> > > > > definition. At very best a "humanoid" parasite. > > >> >> > > > > As to implying a difference, I am not applying ANY definition > >> >> > > > > other > >> >> > > > > than "parasite", "parasitic". It is you that is going the next > >> >> > > > > step > >> >> > > > > without consulting the mother as to "its'" sattus. > > >> >> > > > > On Feb 17, 9:31 pm, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > Mark, > > >> >> > > > > > I think it's more accurate to call a fetus parasitic. A > >> >> > > > > > parasite > >> >> > > > > > typically implies a different type of organism than the host > >> >> > > > > > it's > >> >> > > > > > feeding off of. Calling a fetus a parasite is a ploy used by > >> >> > > > > > abortion > >> >> > > > > > rights advocates as a means of diminishing the 'value' of the > >> >> > > > > > fetus. > >> >> > > > > > Make no mistake, a fetus IS a human. I think her example of a > >> >> > > > > > five > >> >> > > > > > month old fetus that is delivered is spot on. It did not > >> >> > > > > > undergo so > >> >> > > > > > magical transformation during its birth; it was human prior > >> >> > > > > > to deliver > >> >> > > > > > just as it is following delivery. > > >> >> > > > > > On Feb 17, 8:45 pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > It is a parasite until the mother says otherwise. > > >> >> > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:16 pm, Ohio mark <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > how so? > > >> >> > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 7:59 pm, "J.C." <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > I am sure the speech was magnificent; however, it isn't > >> >> > > > > > > > > entirely > >> >> > > > > > > > > factual. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 3:07 pm, Ohio mark > >> >> > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > poor libs just cannot stands opposing points of view. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > even > >> >> > > > from a 12 > >> >> > > > > > > > > > yr old girl. how pitiful. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > On Feb 17, 6:21 am, Ohio mark > >> >> > > > > > > > > > <[email protected]> > >> >> > > > wrote: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Despite facing threats of disqualification, a > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > 12-year-old > >> >> > > > girl took > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > first place in a speech contest when she eloquently > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > argued > >> >> > > > for the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > rights of unborn children – after an offended judge > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > quit. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "What if I told you that right now, someone was > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > choosing if > >> >> > > > you were > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > going to live or die?" the seventh-grader begins in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > a video > >> >> > > > recording > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > of her speech on YouTube. "What if I told you that > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > this > >> >> > > > choice wasn't > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > based on what you could or couldn't do, what you'd > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > done in > >> >> > > > the past or > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > what you would do in the future? And what if I told > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > you, you > >> >> > > > could do > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > nothing about it?" > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > The girl, a student at a Toronto school identified > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > only as > >> >> > > > "Lia," > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > continued: > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "Fellow students and teachers, thousands of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > children are > >> >> > > > right now in > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > that very situation. Someone is choosing without > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > even knowing > >> >> > > > them > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > whether they are going to live or die. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "That someone is their mother. And that choice is > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > abortion." > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Despite Lia's enthusiasm for her topic, her teacher > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "strongly > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > encouraged" her to select a different one for her > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > class > >> >> > > > presentation > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > or she would be considered ineligible for an > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > upcoming speech > >> >> > > > contest. > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > "[S]everal teachers discouraged her from picking > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > the topic of > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > abortion; she was told it was 'too big,' 'too > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > mature' and > >> >> > > > 'too > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > controversial,'" her mother wrote. "She was also > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > told that if > >> >> > > > she went > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > ahead with that topic, she would not be allowed to > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > continue > >> >> > > > on in the > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > speech competition." > > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > Lia's mother continued, "Initially, I tried helping > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > her find > >> >> > > > other > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > topics to speak on, but, in the end, she was > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > adamant. She > >> >> > > > just felt > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > she wanted to continue with the topic of abortion. > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > So she > >> >> > > > forfeited > > ... > > read more »- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
