Frank, We are indeed in agreement (terminology aside). On 2/18/09, frankg <[email protected]> wrote: > > In scientific terms I consider life to begin at conception, simply > because the basic requirements of life generally are met at that > point. Specifically; > > - Cellular reproduction > - Metabolism > - Growth > - Response to stimuli > > In the course of human development I believe a 'person' exists once > there is a heart beat and brain activity. Probably at about 20 weeks. > > I've always been a strong supporter of both abortion rights and > protecting [human] life. After much internal debate I came up with the > 28 week mark as the point where I would begin to restrict abortions. > The key for me is that at 28 weeks the fetus could survive outside the > womb, on its own. So to me this makes the fetus a living human being > and to terminate it is tantamount to murder. While I believe abortion > before week 28 is still taking a life, that life would not be able to > sustain itself without the mother and therefore I think of it more as > opting to remove the feeding tube than murder. > > Some might argue this isn't particularly logical. Either you oppose > taking a life or you don't, and if you believe life begins at > conception then you have to oppose abortion at any time. But just like > the argument for capital punishment or euthanasia, you can oppose > taking a life in general and still accept that there are times when > exceptions can be made. I believe giving a woman 28 weeks to decide > whether to abort her pregnancy should be sufficient. After that it > should be about saving the life inside her. > > This is all JMHO. I accept there is no right answer here and Mark is > probably correct. The extremes on either side will never be happy and > so the way we have it today is probably OK. I'd just like to see more > restrictions on later term abortions. Right now there are too many > loopholes and basically a woman can get it if she really wants it. > > > On Feb 18, 5:11 pm, "Mrs. Rabbit" <[email protected]> wrote: > > frank, in your mind, when does life begin? > > > > On Feb 18, 4:51 pm, 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 > > > > ... > > > > 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. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
