Hardly Frank, my entire adult life has been spent NOT turning a blind eye. I also have found that PRIVACY is paramount.
All rights come from or are an intrinsic part of this one. I can think of NOTHING more private than a womans decision to do as she pleases with her own body and or that which is attached to it. The same right every MAN has without question. The law has a nice balance in it right now... both sides are unhappy and that is a good thing. Leave it be. On 2/18/09, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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 - > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
