|
| Author
|
Post |
 
|
|
Opprimo
F L I N T O I D
|
[Booming Voice]
... From My Cold Dead Hand!....
[/Booming Voice] |
_________________
All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent.
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:22 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
00SL2 schreef:
Why on earth would I want to do that? There is such a thing as a spontaneous abortion which is strictly involuntary, accidents which cause abortions, and domestic violence sometimes causes unnatural abortions. I really don't get your point.
OK, everytime you change the paramaters I will change the parameters. Why can't we just stick to the arguement.
How is preventing a woman from haivng an abortion. Not giving her the rights to control her own body. I mention Crack because she is exercising her rights (illegal that they may be) with retroactive laws governing what she has done before the child was born. EIther the child is part of her body or it isn't? That's my point. The obviuos provable answer is. The child was not part of her body! Once the egg was fertalised. The child became it's own entity. It was no longer part of the mothers body. Thus the reason you can find a woman guilty of child abuse for taking crack while she is carrying the child. Using the same arguement. Disproves the right to abort the child. On either point. The child is not part fo the mothers body! |
|
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
I guess to put it simply..
Why is it child abuse to drug the child. And not child abuse or murder to kill the child?? |
|
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
simon
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
I guess to put it simply..
Why is it child abuse to drug the child. And not child abuse or murder to kill the child??
its a lesser included offfense. |
_________________
Got fish! |
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:15 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
ted, why do you think your beliefs have power to MAKE any
woman do as you believe?? do you have that right???  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:33 pm |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
Howdy Ted:
For the sake of the discussion we need to get this on track as I believe that this can be construed as a fallacious argument, this has nothing to do with the issue at hand, to be honest.
You are citing examples of women and what they negatively do with their bodies when they choose to keep the fetus.
The other argument is the woman's choice to terminate the pregnancy.
For a fetus to develop correctly they have to be a part of that mom, there are two separate entities in one body connected by the umbilical cord and the placenta, since the placenta is adhered to the uterine wall. This is where arguments for the child being a "single" entity can be negated.
While the argument for the single person adheres to societal norms morals brought for the topic that a fetus has a soul upon conception. Another topic is as is was in the late 1800's was that when you could feel the quickening, is when the soul came into the fetus.
As an example, I tend to use the word fetus, whereas you use the terms baby and infant.
****How is preventing a woman from haivng an abortion. Not giving her the rights to control her own body.****
Easy, woman does not want to continue gestation, option not there, she cannot make decisions about her medical health. |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:03 pm |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
well ted, now your in the canoe without a paddle.  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:21 pm |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
last time here schreef:
ted, why do you think your beliefs have power to MAKE any
woman do as you believe?? do you have that right???
What do I believe? That it is wrong to kill innocent people?
quote:
For a fetus to develop correctly they have to be a part of that mom, there are two separate entities in one body connected by the umbilical cord and the placenta, since the placenta is adhered to the uterine wall. This is where arguments for the child being a "single" entity can be negated.
Hmm, That's what you think? What is the Purpose placenta and umbilical cord?? It's purpose is to draw nurtirion from the mother. It is not part fo the Mother Nor is it part of the child. Simply put it's like a straw with a filter.
(ok over simply)
But, it is no way and the child is no way part of the mothers body? If it was. Why does the mother and Child normally have two different blood type? Sometimes The mother even has a blood type that chemically incompatable with the Child. If their bolld was to mix they both could die. ??? Doesn't sound like they are the same body to me? Not if one persons blood type is not compatable with the other's? |
|
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:01 am |
|
|
Ted Jankowski
F L I N T O I D
|
BTW, this isn't my opinion. It's a medical fact! I didn't design the reproductive system. Call it God or evolution whatever. That's just the way it is.
ALso another thought. Why then when a family member needs a blood transfusion or organ donor. Do they look at the Father and siblnigs. It's rare for the mother to be a match. That's because, the Child is more the Father's genes/body than they are the mothers. Hmmmm Let's think past personal opinion and look at some facts! |
|
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 10:06 am |
|
|
last time here
Guest
|
oh lord, here we go  ....
oscar strikes again!!!!  |
_________________
Guest post |
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:13 am |
|
|
andi03
F L I N T O I D
|
****Hmm, That's what you think? What is the Purpose placenta and umbilical cord?? It's purpose is to draw nurtirion from the mother. It is not part fo the Mother Nor is it part of the child. Simply put it's like a straw with a filter. *****
Oy......exactly, without the mother there would be no fetus, hence fetus is part of the mother. The mother is a "host".
***But, it is no way and the child is no way part of the mothers body? If it was. Why does the mother and Child normally have two different blood type? Sometimes The mother even has a blood type that chemically incompatable with the Child. If their bolld was to mix they both could die. ??? Doesn't sound like they are the same body to me? Not if one persons blood type is not compatable with the other's?*****
http://pregnancy.about.com/cs/rhfactor/a/aa050601a.htm
It's called Rh factor compatibility. |
_________________
Build a bridge and get over it! |
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 11:27 am |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
quote:
Ted Jankowski schreef:
BTW, this isn't my opinion. It's a medical fact! I didn't design the reproductive system. Call it God or evolution whatever. That's just the way it is.
ALso another thought. Why then when a family member needs a blood transfusion or organ donor. Do they look at the Father and siblnigs. It's rare for the mother to be a match. That's because, the Child is more the Father's genes/body than they are the mothers. Hmmmm Let's think past personal opinion and look at some facts!
If you actually ever used facts, I might be tempted to discuss. As it were, I wonder what "fact" supports that more genes come from the father. WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG.
Please examine basic genetics before making such a claim.
The ONLY thing a man definitively determines is the gender of the child. If he gives the Y, it's a boy; the X, a girl.
A child receives 50% of its genes from the mother, 50% from the father.
You are arguing both sides of the same argument, so I'm not sure what there is further to say.
A fetus cannot survive without its host, therefore it's not a baby or a person.
But if, for you, it's so simple that it's a life life life no matter what, then I suppose you don't support legal abortion for victims of rape and incest? |
|
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:04 pm |
|
|
Opinionated
F L I N T O I D
|
| This is getting too hot and heavy. After reading the posts, I became confused. Who's for what here? Isn't abortion a mute and far too controversial argument here? Won't abortions happen - a) whether or not they're legal, b) if they're an accident or not, and c) no matter what we say to ted? |
_________________
If you can imagine it, you can create it. If you can dream it, you can become it. |
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 1:21 pm |
|
|
Demeralda
F L I N T O I D
|
| The point here is to keep them legal. Of course they will happen. I'd like it to stay safe for women who so choose. No more coat hangers! |
|
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:27 pm |
|
|
Opinionated
F L I N T O I D
|
| Once again, I couldn't agree with you more, Demeralda. Make them legal and safe. They having an option (safe or not) is not the issue. They've already got that! |
_________________
If you can imagine it, you can create it. If you can dream it, you can become it. |
|
|
Fri Jan 04, 2008 2:36 pm |
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Register
Profile
FlintTalk.com Forum Index
> Political Talk
