<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 22 2005, 09:23 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 22 2005, 09:23 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cmeast+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cmeast)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I believe that still being inside their mother and <b>unable to be seperated </b> counts as 'extenuating'. Then it doesn't matter when it becomes a person. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Erm, yes they can be separated and survive at 24 weeks (youngest ever recorded premature baby was at 21 1/2 weeks) they only need an incubator untill lungs start producing surfactant, then they can breath on their own. So you saying the mother can abort a day before she is due to deliver is...bleh <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
At least put back your cut off point to 24 weeks like most pro-choice.. coz that is frankly shocking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I never actually said that once, you should read everything I've written. I've always argued that 1) killing babies is bad but 2)forcing mothers to have kids they don't want or can't have is worse. I've always said that the mother comes first and that if they have to die then they die. If they want it taken out and it can live so be it, if it can't then so be it. If a woman couldn't survive the removal of it alive then the kid dies, if she can survive it fine then great, absolutely no difference between that and an abortion from her perspective.
I know girls who have had abortions and they always wonder about the kid, they almost all wish it didn't have to die. I'm not going to put it at a number of weeks though, instead just base it on if the child will survive outside of the womb (and not be severely crippled in the future).
[Edit] Maybe you thought that because I was so willing to discuss it on your terms of 'baby killing' or because I discussed it from an ethical stand point and tried to avoid the practical situation which, as important and valid as it is, isn't needed to defend abortion.[/Edit]
not to muddy the arguement further but considering we don't seem to have any concrete line for 'life' I wonder how much of it is also about 'potential life'.
For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life? If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?
CMeast, now i get what you mean, it wasnt clear in your previous point. I did read it, twice actually as i wasnt 100 % sure after the first time. The fact i quoted you directly does mean you said it. But now that you have re-said it in different words get it. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they want it taken out and it can live so be it, if it can't then so be it. If a woman couldn't survive the removal of it alive then the kid dies, if she can survive it fine then great, absolutely no difference between that and an abortion from her perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would hope there was a ifference, one does not kill the foetus, the other does.I would rather have the option of removal than the killing of it. It might be possible in the future but i think the most likely thing would be much more effective contraception, like a jab a month gives total (reversible) sterility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know girls who have had abortions and they always wonder about the kid, they almost all wish it didn't have to die. I'm not going to put it at a number of weeks though, instead just base it on if the child will survive outside of the womb (and not be severely crippled in the future).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The advances of modern medicine mean very few numbers of the millions of premature babies that are born ever have ill effect, i have heard of a few cases of braindamage, almost all caused by delay problems in the c-section, first breath and intubation of the baby. So no cripples...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->not to muddy the arguement further but considering we don't seem to have any concrete line for 'life' I wonder how much of it is also about 'potential life'.
For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life? If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> (lol another outsider trying to beat me back, i seem to be the only one continuing this argument on a pro-life stance... hello Gemm <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) This came up earlier in the thread... <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never got this argument. You can use this to say that contraception is bad. A child can live if two people don't use a condom while having sex, so why deny that child the right to live? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-me+Steel Troll--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me @ Steel Troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because there is no child, until after conception, only male gametes and female gametes, which arnt even hole cells untill they fuse <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no, i am not trying to protect eggs or sperm, they are not humans they arnt even whole cells, they are like skin cells, if you continue in that vein of argument you could argue that a cell has cell has a right to live so we shouldnt go oput in the sun unless we nuke t with uv ligth and it dies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
I am against killing a foetus, as it is human. Whats the Latin species name for a foetus? Homo sapiens. Whats the latin species name for a fully grown male? Homo sapiens
hey, I gotta show that not all UKers are anti-freedom ^~
Fair enough that it was brought up before; I guess I missed it. Either way comparing skin cells to eggs/sperm isn't quite the same as skin has no natural potential to become a human being. If you insist on fusion being the defining point of a baby based off the arguement that the two gametes that make it a whole aren't a fully formed thing in themselves then doesn't it logically follow that the zygote isn't a baby as it also isn't a full creature with organs, blood and form. It has to first split and duplicate several million times to become the building blocks of the foetus... even then when do we draw the line? :3
I don't recall my biology but I'm pretty sure a human corpse is also called a homosapien; a label doesn't really tell us much.
Fine, so it's settled then, if the kid can be taken out fine then that's okay. Otherwise it gets nuked <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am against killing a foetus, as it is human. Whats the Latin species name for a foetus? Homo sapiens. Whats the latin species name for a fully grown male? Homo sapiens<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We kill humans all the time and its ok. So does that mean a foetus that is the product of rape isn't human? Well then why can't we kill that? Surely two lives is better than one and 'the advances of modern medicine' means we can care for emotionally damaged people better than ever...
[Edit]Oh and I'm from the UK too <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/Edit]
<_< >_> It is a human being. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aww plz dont go back to the rape thingy, we already explained that, dont keep on making me refer back. I explained 3 times why. Its wrong, it has been forced on the woman. It will already leave here with deep emotonal scarrs. These scars are endogenous, modern medicine, however good can ony tackle exogenous factors. Theer are no real cures for mental problems out there, there are only alevients (Eg prozac which upps seratonin ), these dont tackle the problem and often ruin lives.
You pro-choice are so quick to shy away from any lable that links us undeniably to the foetus, because it is human.
CMEast, you say the mother has ultimate choice, but what right has she to terminate?If you say the baby is in her and therefore part of her and therefore she can abort at any time you are mistaken.
The life is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the her.Her body is feeding the life, but Her body is separate from the life growing in her.The life growing in the womb can have a different blood than the mother and has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother. By 24 weeks it can hear, feel and react to exogenous factors. If the mother feels stressed, the baby feels stressed. Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal but that did not make it right. We all have a responsibility to protect and guard life. I am only a teenager, what influence do i realy have in the wider scheam of things, yet i know what is wrong and right. I am at least voicing these views.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Either way comparing skin cells to eggs/sperm isn't quite the same as skin has no natural potential to become a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can clone a human from a skin cell, you cant clone a human from sperm/ egg because it does not contain all the necessary info to make it human.
And you often say you dont know when it becomes human so there is no point in arguing when... If you do not know when it becomes human, then should you risk killing it? Since it might very well be human, and deffinately becomes human at some point, do you just guess and hope you got your time right?
I don't say there's no point in arguing; I ask why your definitions only go so far. Why aren't sperm and egg sacred as potential life? If a foetus is I've already argued why your explanation should also cover the gametes. You also say however that gametes don't count and I explained why it seems inappropriate that you therefore consider a developing zygote to be a life.
I'm only trying to work out what your stance really is as I'm really not seeing the dividing line here or when I do it seems balanced on logic that breaks when inversely applied to itself; perhaps I'm just reading it wrong but if that's the case then explain to me. Tell me why gametes which are incomplete parts of a whole are any less valuable than the zygote they produce which in itself is the incomplete building blocks of yet another whole :o
Oh and I did cover cloning in that quote with a carefully placed word; <b>natural</b>. It wasn't just put there for decoration :3
I have no intentions of watching the clip... why? Because I've probably already seen it. After a certain stage of development I might be inclined to agree with you but to outright illegalise abortion at any stage of pregnancy seems flawed even at it's basic theory in my humble opinion; that's why I'm in here adding my two pence :p
It seems we need some more medical knowledge to argue the 24-week option of aborting the "baby." So I shall assist. I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore.
First two bits of information.
1. If a doctor were to remove the "baby" at 24 weeks, it would have to be using a C-Section, as there isn't a single drug that could induce vaginal birth at this early state.
2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies.
3. This also leaves a permant scar upon the woman's abdomen, not to mention it shall be sore for at least 4 days to a week.
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 22 2005, 04:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 22 2005, 04:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems we need some more medical knowledge to argue the 24-week option of aborting the "baby." .... I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> What? You havent been discussing with me, you last posted yesterday and have since have not discussed anything else... have i offended you in some way Cyndane?
Oh and you are sooo wrong. Its not by C-Section at all, at least not in Brittain or in the States.And if we want all the facts on various abortion procedures, here they are
1. Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy. 2. Dilitation and Extraction, D&X, (Partial Birth Abortion) - the baby is delivered feet first. The head is left inside the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture the rear of the skull at the base and the brains are sucked out. Once dead, the baby is fully delivered. 3. Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) - Abortive procedure where the abortionists inserts a curved knife into the placenta and cuts the baby up into pieces before it is suctioned out. Done in the first trimester. 4. Dilatation & Evacuation - An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb. 5. Mifepristone or Mifeprex (RU-486) - a pill taken after conception that stops the absorption of Progesterone, a hormone necessary for sustaining pregnancy. Taken with misoprostol that causes the uterus to contract and eject the newly conceived baby. 6. Partial Birth Abortion - An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered. 7. Pregnancy Reduction - An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb. 8. Saline Amniocentesis - An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later.
Almost all abortions are carried out in one the above fashion to prevent any scarring t the mother. GG on your sources.
You said those that wanted to abort the "baby" at 24 weeks but the "baby" can still live, probably. If you will notice, that is how the "baby" would be have to be delivered in order not to kill it. I really don't think you read to well at times.
(I was giving you information on how the "baby" could be kept alive if they mother didn't wish to keep it and not have it killed.)
*edit* Just to clarify because sometimes I can be confusing.
Aborting a pregnancy does not mean inducing an abortion those are two seperate entities. You can abort a pregnancy and use a C-Section as one possible option.
Do not confuse "Abort" with "Abortion" which are two different words and meanings.
Abort To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry. To cease growth before full development or maturation. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
Abortion Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival. Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion. development or maturation. An aborted organism.
I see no discernible difference. You can not Abortion a foetus, you can abort a foetus.#
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems we need some more medical knowledge to argue the 24-week option of <b>aborting</b> the "baby." So I shall assist. I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, maybe i jumped to a jumpable conclusion, was it me or did you use a word that meas kill, in a sentence in which you were trying to show how to keep it alive? Did i not get what you meant, You aint really reffering to a previous post of mine...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Again i ask, why?
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 20 2005, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 20 2005, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The conditions of the said survival are very good with modern medicine. But that is beyond my point, i was just stating that if babies can survive outside the womb, be it with care, after 22 weeks and thrive, becoming normal healthy humans( Note only their lungs need to develop after 22 weeks for them to be able to survive outside of the womb) then that means they are human and functioning enough for it to be considerd wrong to kill them at 24 weeks with an abortion.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then?
<!--QuoteBegin-ElectricSheep+Apr 22 2005, 05:26 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (ElectricSheep @ Apr 22 2005, 05:26 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 20 2005, 06:48 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 20 2005, 06:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The conditions of the said survival are very good with modern medicine. But that is beyond my point, i was just stating that if babies can survive outside the womb, be it with care, after 22 weeks and thrive, becoming normal healthy humans( Note only their lungs need to develop after 22 weeks for them to be able to survive outside of the womb) then that means they are human and functioning enough for it to be considerd wrong to kill them at 24 weeks with an abortion.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, at conception. And yes the technology to make a child out of a cell exists its called a clone. No they should not be considered a child. This is getting silly... Hw many times do i have to say something? sperm and eggs are not "sacred" But when they fuse to produce an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old... You see where im getting at? The embryo is a human, its just at a different stage of life. I think that is undeniable.
<!--QuoteBegin-http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abort+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=abort)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Main Entry: 1abort Pronunciation: &-'bort Function: verb Etymology: Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born -- more at ORIENT intransitive senses 1 : to bring forth premature or stillborn offspring 2 : to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary transitive senses 1 a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term 2 a : to terminate prematurely : CANCEL <abort a project> <abort a spaceflight> b : to stop in the early stages <abort a disease> - abort·er noun <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abort does not mean kill at all. :-)
I am not sure where you are getting your definitions of the words from. However, that is what Merriam-Webster defines abort as. Terminating a pregancy is not always killing the "baby." I fail to see how you are assuming that.
I refuse to answer the second question on grounds of the fifth amendment.
I know you are not in the US, but that matters not, this board is. :-)
you missed zygote stage... it starts as a cell cleavage; nothing quite as fancy as an embryo.
Regardless follow your own logic; <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gametes through combination become a zygote which naturally grows to become an embryo. By your own reasoning gametes are human; they're two halves of one.
Why's that important? because it completes the chain. You cut off the first part of it because it's inconvienent to your arguement. Why are gametes exempt? "Because you say so" isn't grounds for an arguement :p
<!--QuoteBegin- 5th amendment+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( 5th amendment)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And abort means to kill Grr... Want me to get loads of links showing you that abort means kill? I mean come on, now you are just haggling me... you have broken down the discussion to this?
<a href='http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD</a> Definition abort (END PREGNANCY) [Show phonetics] verb 1 [T] to stop the development of a baby that has not been born, usually by having a medical operation: Do you think it's wrong to use aborted foetuses for medical research?
<a href='http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0020500.html' target='_blank'>http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0020500.html</a> a·bort Listen: [ -bôrt ] v. a·bort·ed, a·bort·ing, a·borts v. intr.
1. To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry.
2. To cease growth before full development or maturation.
3. To terminate an operation or procedure, as with a project, missile, airplane, or space vehicle, before completion.
v. tr.
1. a. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable. b. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable. c. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
2. To interfere with the development of; conclude prematurely: abort plans for a corporate takeover.
3. To terminate before completion: abort a trip because of illness; abort a takeoff.
In this discussion we are using Abort as the noun. In your own sourced deffinition <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term... 2a : to terminate prematurely<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I e to end it, to kill the foetus, thats what this thread is about. Abortion, or to abort the foetus ie to kill it. Does any one else see what Cyndane is on about? Coz i certainly dont...
If you dont want to answer or take part in discussion, with no reason given therefore no scope for any adaptation or change, why dont you just leave it at that?
to be honest? Cyndane just made a one line sentence remark at the end of a post remarking that aborting and inducing an abortion weren't the same thing... rather than tackle the actual main part of the post you lept on that last sentence and the two of you have been wrestling over the dictionary ever since :p
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+Apr 22 2005, 05:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll @ Apr 22 2005, 05:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term... 2a : to terminate prematurely<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> First, what I chose to do or not to do it is not part of your "job" to tell me.
Secondly, not even once in the definition did I post does it say kill. Canceling (aborting) a pregnancy doesn't automatically mean death for the "child".
I thought we had cleared that up before. You said 24 weeks and they can live on their own, I told you what had to be done in order for the 24 weeks to work out. So, you have two options.
1. Accept the fact it would take a C-Section to successfully cancel (abort) a pregnancy before it is time. (Means woman can not have any more children) <b> or </b> 2. Deny the fact that a C-Section would be the only way to successfully cancel (abort) a pregnancy. (The ignorance is almost as bad as another person who used to post)
With option #1, I rest my case and the information still stands. With option #2, you fail to understand why option #1 is the only answer. I would reccommend googling C-Sections.
Side note: Gem your posts are probably some of the most interesting I have read todate on the subject. I thank you for your input.
<!--QuoteBegin-Geminosity+Apr 22 2005, 06:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Geminosity @ Apr 22 2005, 06:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> you missed zygote stage... it starts as a cell cleavage; nothing quite as fancy as an embryo.
Regardless follow your own logic; <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gametes through combination become a zygote which naturally grows to become an embryo. By your own reasoning gametes are human; they're two halves of one.
Why's that important? because it completes the chain. You cut off the first part of it because it's inconvienent to your arguement. Why are gametes exempt? "Because you say so" isn't grounds for an arguement <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> ...
You insist Gem... One of 200 million eggs in your womb. It sits there in your ovaries. At some point, mensuration occurs, it oes in the uterus for a few days, then is expeleld. It is not even a full cell.
A sperm and an egg, the fuse THEN they are one, they become it. A Zygote. It is in your uterous. It is life, how we were all created, it attaches to its mother, she nurtures it. It grows, at some point it has ammased enough matter to be called a foetus, its cells differentiate, grow. Thrive It has arms, legs, ears. It can sense. After more growth it is ready to leave its now cramped environment. It is born, a baby, it will grow, a child and then a man so on and so on....
gametes are <b> NOT </b> human. They just arnt. Im not being pig headed, i dont say so, its a Tautology, and thats why it fustrates me thats y i have the dots ... Its just fundamentaly different, Zygote life, Gametes half cells. many of them at that
If you cannot see that a Zygote is fundamentaly different from two half cells.. i dont know... I might have to enroll you in a biology class or something Gem. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:red'>EDIT</span> So you are saying Abortion doesnt mean kill? You are saying that when we say , Lets have an abortion, the baby is just magically c-sectioned out and it lives hapily ever after in lala land? If you are on about removing the baby, without killing it, please dont use the word abort or abortion, you will just confuse thngs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Cmeast) I believe that still being inside their mother and unable to be seperated counts as 'extenuating'. Then it doesn't matter when it becomes a person.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm, yes they can be separated and survive at 24 weeks (youngest ever recorded premature baby was at 21 1/2 weeks) they only need an incubator untill lungs start producing surfactant<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A C-section is the surgical delivery of a baby through the abdomen, rather than the V*g*na, using abdominal and uterine incisions. It is also referred to as a Caesarean Section
:What Are The Risks?
A cesarean section is major surgery. Risks include an adverse reaction to anesthesia; internal bleeding; blood clots; injury to abdominal organs; and bladder, kidney, or uterine infection. (note doesnt say anything about not being able to have children)
: Will I need a c-section for my next baby, too?
A: Probably not. Since the conditions that lead to c-sections rarely repeat themselves in subsequent pregnancies, up to 80% of women can have a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) the next time around. The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a vertical uterine incision, which is likely to rupture during labor (8-10%). The odds that a regular, horizontal uterine incision will rupture during a VBAC are very small (1%).
My moms best friend had a csection. Two years later she had a second child, no problems. So no, having a C-section does not mean no more babies
Oh and Cyndane What the Bloody 'ell r u on about? I didnt order you to do anything, <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you dont want to answer or take part in discussion, with no reason given therefore no scope for any adaptation or change, why dont you just leave it at that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why dont you just leave it at that, that is a question, not an order. If i wanted you to leave i would have told you "why dont you just leave?, but i didnt. Im not a mod, i cant order you around.And i wasnt.
You stated that you dont want to take part in the discussion due to article 5, then dont. I dont even know what that means. i know i do not have a job title , i did say you "Oh come on, now you are just being childish..." I did not say, DONT YOU DARE POST IN HERE!! I asked why, you said Article 5, as im im british you knew i didnt understand, but chosenot to elaborate.gg
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think my stance on this is by now guessable, no. But then in my view neither is the mother able to abort.
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I think my stance on this is by now guessable, no. But then in my view neither is the mother able to abort. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You are also not a woman, thus your opinion matters not since he is looking for a woman's opinion.
I am only going to state this one more time for you.
An <b> (abortion) </b> means to prematurely kill the "baby." That is a fact.
<b> (Aborting) </b> or <b> (To abort) </b> a pregnancy prematurely is not the same as having an abortion. (See above definition or reference my previous posts)
Your mothers friend had a horizontal C-Section, which means it was a small incision along the pelvic bone right above the pubic area.
<!--QuoteBegin-steel_troll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steel_troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a <b> vertical uterine incision... </b> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus.
Wasnt that a taunt? Like come on ladies, im wating?... if not, my bad...<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
( verb, abort and abortion, noun. THe noun gives the word its meaning. "Abortion means to prematurely kill the "baby." That is a fact" Therefore, the two words are of the same root and lend itself to mean kill.)
Dont pick and chose from quotes, lets qualify it...here is the original full quote: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a vertical uterine incision, which is likely to rupture during labor (8-10%)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Approximately 0.1-3.2% of <b>ALL </b> women have a uterine abnormality. Factor out the ones in the baby bearing age range, now whats the chance of getting one in the the c-section baby saving procedure??And then not even all of these women have a severe enough uterine abnormality that warrants a vertical c-section. On top of this only 8 - 10% have the possibility of their uterus rupturing. Now thats an extreemly low number.
This means there is a very good chance that the woman <b>WILL</b> be able to have a second child no problem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+Apr 22 2005, 03:29 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane @ Apr 22 2005, 03:29 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> 1. If a doctor were to remove the "baby" at 24 weeks, it would have to be using a C-Section, as there isn't a single drug that could induce vaginal birth at this early state.
2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> <!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As Cyndane smacked down Troll's response by being that of a man, and then proceeded to continue an argument about a definition, I'll just go ahead and give another man's opinion on this particular topic: the decision to have an abortion should be the woman's. For one thing, if abortions required the man's approval, some women might not be able to get abortions if their man runs out on them. Also, it's the woman's body; I've already said this, but I wouldn't try to influence my lover's decision either way in she got pregnant before we agreed upon it.
<!--QuoteBegin-Sky+Apr 22 2005, 11:37 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Sky @ Apr 22 2005, 11:37 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'm gonna smack you both upside the head with dictionaries. Semantics is NOT the most crucial argument here. >_>
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> As Cyndane smacked down Troll's response by being that of a man, and then proceeded to continue an argument about a definition, I'll just go ahead and give another man's opinion on this particular topic: the decision to have an abortion should be the woman's. For one thing, if abortions required the man's approval, some women might not be able to get abortions if their man runs out on them. Also, it's the woman's body; I've already said this, but I wouldn't try to influence my lover's decision either way in she got pregnant before we agreed upon it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I do appreciate the response. However I thinkyou may have misinterpreted my question.
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not?
Cyndane, i read all your posts. ( i then say to myself WTH? Im sure thats not right, and then research to make sure... <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> )
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I then researched and found that not to be true. A baby can easil be delivered at 24 weeks with both types of C-section, the vetical incision can cause complications, in only 8-10 % of the women <b> With</b> uterine abnormalities. Read the figures, they are undeniable. I dont see any flaw in them. I havnt found any resource which says you can only have a vertical incision at 24 weeks due to the babies position in the uterus. Point me to one please if you are so adamant...
So its not true, horizontal cuts are done. Only in cases with uterine abnormailities are vertical cuts practiced. Modern medicine has allowed this to be possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I Have One C-Section Does That Mean I Will Always Have to Have C-Sections?
Most certainly not! As mentioned before, if you get a low transverse incision on the uterus (horizontal incision) it may be safe for you to go through labor and have a vaginal delivery in the future. The main risk of vaginal birth after a cesarean section is uterine rupture or a separation of the previous scar on the uterus. In low transverse incisions the risk is very small -- approximately 0.4%. In this case, it is safe to attempt a vaginal delivery. There are some obstetricians who will give you the choice of an elective repeat c-section or trial of labor. You will not be offered this choice unless the obstetrician feels it is safe for you to attempt a vaginal delivery. Remember that the recovery period is shorter and the risks are fewer with a vaginal delivery. <b>If the previous c-section incision on the uterus is vertical, the risk of uterine rupture rises to 4-5% and a repeat c-section will be required </b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another source, the last boldend bit coupled with the fact that only 8-10 % of women have uterine abnormalities is especialy of value in nagating your argument. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Brian Lupton+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr. Brian Lupton)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another factor increasing the number of caesareans is the possibility of saving premature babies. Thirty years ago, a baby weighing less than 1,000 grams had a slim chance of survival. "Now, more than half of babies delivered at 24 weeks, or weighing 700 grams or more, can survive," says Dr. Brian Lupton, clinical director of the Special Care Nursery at C & W" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->said in 1996. Immagine now in 2005...<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-FilthyLarry+Apr 23 2005, 12:39 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (FilthyLarry @ Apr 23 2005, 12:39 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I do appreciate the response. However I thinkyou may have misinterpreted my question.
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I feel that the woman has the right to an abortion because she's the one who carries the burden. She's the one who has to go through birth or the abortion. All the man has to do is helping the woman when she needs it (which he should be doing before, as well, really), and have sex. If he wants a baby or not, then he should probably make sure the woman agrees with him beforehand...
Troll... sorry but trying to write off my question as tautology and then attempting to sound superior indicating I have no idea what I'm talking about is simply bad debating.
You've yet to actually back up what you say with anything other than "because I say so".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gametes are NOT human. They just arnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said; "because I say so". You don't give any actual fact or even a morsel of logic as to why eggs and sperm aren't considered alive or constitute if not as human life then potential human life. Again and again you resort to "because I don't like that arguement" by saying 'its just fundamentally different' without any explanation or attempt of justification as if it was some defence which sadly... it's not :p
If you insist on trying to make people sound uneducated or indirectly throw insults in that manner then it not only comes off as uncourteous but perhaps shows that your arguements are too weak to allow you to continue in a non-aggressive manner :3
On another note no zygote, embryo or fetus is guaranteed to ever become born. While not a particularly pleasant part of nature, stillbirths and miscarriages do happen. They are just potential life, as any gamete is...
I guess, for your sake, I'll round it up again for clarity.
2 living half cells grow together to make a single living half cell we call a zygote. The zygote grows by splitting and self-replication and continues in various forms till it's birthday time. every gamete is a potential baby and a living thing; just like a zygote and an embryo. Essentially without both gametes there is no life... zygotes, embryos,etc don't just magically happen; they're the product of two gametes.
All I ask for is a remotely acceptable piece of logic or even fact that shows why gametes are excluded from your mercy. Think about it before you try and answer with another "because they just are", "because it's different" or even "lololo learn biology noob". Those answers hold no explanation; they merely say "I don't know but I'd rather ignore the situation because it's inconvienent to me".
If you can't justify your own points then who do you honestly expect to convince? :/
Comments
Erm, yes they can be separated and survive at 24 weeks (youngest ever recorded premature baby was at 21 1/2 weeks) they only need an incubator untill lungs start producing surfactant, then they can breath on their own. So you saying the mother can abort a day before she is due to deliver is...bleh <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif' /><!--endemo-->
At least put back your cut off point to 24 weeks like most pro-choice.. coz that is frankly shocking. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I never actually said that once, you should read everything I've written. I've always argued that 1) killing babies is bad but 2)forcing mothers to have kids they don't want or can't have is worse. I've always said that the mother comes first and that if they have to die then they die. If they want it taken out and it can live so be it, if it can't then so be it. If a woman couldn't survive the removal of it alive then the kid dies, if she can survive it fine then great, absolutely no difference between that and an abortion from her perspective.
I know girls who have had abortions and they always wonder about the kid, they almost all wish it didn't have to die. I'm not going to put it at a number of weeks though, instead just base it on if the child will survive outside of the womb (and not be severely crippled in the future).
[Edit] Maybe you thought that because I was so willing to discuss it on your terms of 'baby killing' or because I discussed it from an ethical stand point and tried to avoid the practical situation which, as important and valid as it is, isn't needed to defend abortion.[/Edit]
For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life? If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If they want it taken out and it can live so be it, if it can't then so be it. If a woman couldn't survive the removal of it alive then the kid dies, if she can survive it fine then great, absolutely no difference between that and an abortion from her perspective.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I would hope there was a ifference, one does not kill the foetus, the other does.I would rather have the option of removal than the killing of it. It might be possible in the future but i think the most likely thing would be much more effective contraception, like a jab a month gives total (reversible) sterility.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I know girls who have had abortions and they always wonder about the kid, they almost all wish it didn't have to die. I'm not going to put it at a number of weeks though, instead just base it on if the child will survive outside of the womb (and not be severely crippled in the future).<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The advances of modern medicine mean very few numbers of the millions of premature babies that are born ever have ill effect, i have heard of a few cases of braindamage, almost all caused by delay problems in the c-section, first breath and intubation of the baby. So no cripples...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->not to muddy the arguement further but considering we don't seem to have any concrete line for 'life' I wonder how much of it is also about 'potential life'.
For example steel states that 24 weeks they can survive so what about before that? Are they just potential life? If that's the case how far do we take the protection of 'potential life'? Do remove the eggs/sperm from people and store them safely so none can be lost to menstration/masturbation? After all every sperm and egg is half of a potential life... do we only go so far as to count the ones that combine even though each one has a chance to combine to be a fully-grown human?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
(lol another outsider trying to beat me back, i seem to be the only one continuing this argument on a pro-life stance... hello Gemm <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> ) This came up earlier in the thread...
<!--QuoteBegin-theclam+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I never got this argument. You can use this to say that contraception is bad. A child can live if two people don't use a condom while having sex, so why deny that child the right to live?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-me+Steel Troll--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (me @ Steel Troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Because there is no child, until after conception, only male gametes and female gametes, which arnt even hole cells untill they fuse
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So no, i am not trying to protect eggs or sperm, they are not humans they arnt even whole cells, they are like skin cells, if you continue in that vein of argument you could argue that a cell has cell has a right to live so we shouldnt go oput in the sun unless we nuke t with uv ligth and it dies <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> .
I am against killing a foetus, as it is human. Whats the Latin species name for a foetus? Homo sapiens.
Whats the latin species name for a fully grown male? Homo sapiens
Fair enough that it was brought up before; I guess I missed it. Either way comparing skin cells to eggs/sperm isn't quite the same as skin has no natural potential to become a human being.
If you insist on fusion being the defining point of a baby based off the arguement that the two gametes that make it a whole aren't a fully formed thing in themselves then doesn't it logically follow that the zygote isn't a baby as it also isn't a full creature with organs, blood and form. It has to first split and duplicate several million times to become the building blocks of the foetus... even then when do we draw the line? :3
I don't recall my biology but I'm pretty sure a human corpse is also called a homosapien; a label doesn't really tell us much.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I am against killing a foetus, as it is human. Whats the Latin species name for a foetus? Homo sapiens.
Whats the latin species name for a fully grown male? Homo sapiens<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We kill humans all the time and its ok. So does that mean a foetus that is the product of rape isn't human? Well then why can't we kill that? Surely two lives is better than one and 'the advances of modern medicine' means we can care for emotionally damaged people better than ever...
[Edit]Oh and I'm from the UK too <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->[/Edit]
<_< >_> It is a human being. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Aww plz dont go back to the rape thingy, we already explained that, dont keep on making me refer back. I explained 3 times why. Its wrong, it has been forced on the woman. It will already leave here with deep emotonal scarrs. These scars are endogenous, modern medicine, however good can ony tackle exogenous factors. Theer are no real cures for mental problems out there, there are only alevients (Eg prozac which upps seratonin ), these dont tackle the problem and often ruin lives.
You pro-choice are so quick to shy away from any lable that links us undeniably to the foetus, because it is human.
CMEast, you say the mother has ultimate choice, but what right has she to terminate?If you say the baby is in her and therefore part of her and therefore she can abort at any time you are mistaken.
The life is part of the woman only in the sense that the life is living and growing inside the her.Her body is feeding the life, but Her body is separate from the life growing in her.The life growing in the womb can have a different blood than the mother and has separate brain waves. It is, therefore, an independent life with its own DNA, its nature is human, and its life is separate from the mother. By 24 weeks it can hear, feel and react to exogenous factors. If the mother feels stressed, the baby feels stressed.
Though abortion is legal, that does not mean it is right. Slavery was legal but that did not make it right. We all have a responsibility to protect and guard life. I am only a teenager, what influence do i realy have in the wider scheam of things, yet i know what is wrong and right. I am at least voicing these views.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Either way comparing skin cells to eggs/sperm isn't quite the same as skin has no natural potential to become a human being. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You can clone a human from a skin cell, you cant clone a human from sperm/ egg because it does not contain all the necessary info to make it human.
And you often say you dont know when it becomes human so there is no point in arguing when... If you do not know when it becomes human, then should you risk killing it? Since it might very well be human, and deffinately becomes human at some point, do you just guess and hope you got your time right?
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Has anyone watched the clip yet?
I'm only trying to work out what your stance really is as I'm really not seeing the dividing line here or when I do it seems balanced on logic that breaks when inversely applied to itself; perhaps I'm just reading it wrong but if that's the case then explain to me. Tell me why gametes which are incomplete parts of a whole are any less valuable than the zygote they produce which in itself is the incomplete building blocks of yet another whole :o
Oh and I did cover cloning in that quote with a carefully placed word; <b>natural</b>. It wasn't just put there for decoration :3
I have no intentions of watching the clip... why? Because I've probably already seen it. After a certain stage of development I might be inclined to agree with you but to outright illegalise abortion at any stage of pregnancy seems flawed even at it's basic theory in my humble opinion; that's why I'm in here adding my two pence :p
So I shall assist. I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore.
First two bits of information.
1. If a doctor were to remove the "baby" at 24 weeks, it would have to be using a C-Section, as there isn't a single drug that could induce vaginal birth at this early state.
2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies.
3. This also leaves a permant scar upon the woman's abdomen, not to mention it shall be sore for at least 4 days to a week.
Make of the information what you want.
....
I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
What? You havent been discussing with me, you last posted yesterday and have since have not discussed anything else... have i offended you in some way Cyndane?
Oh and you are sooo wrong. Its not by C-Section at all, at least not in Brittain or in the States.And if we want all the facts on various abortion procedures, here they are
1. Abortion - the termination of a pregnancy.
2. Dilitation and Extraction, D&X, (Partial Birth Abortion) - the baby is delivered feet first. The head is left inside the birth canal. A sharp instrument is used to puncture the rear of the skull at the base and the brains are sucked out. Once dead, the baby is fully delivered.
3. Dilatation & Curettage (D&C) - Abortive procedure where the abortionists inserts a curved knife into the placenta and cuts the baby up into pieces before it is suctioned out. Done in the first trimester.
4. Dilatation & Evacuation - An abortive procedure where an abortionist inserts a pliers-like instrument into the uterus. The abortionist then grabs whatever part of the baby it comes in contact with. Then, by twisting and pulling, the baby is dismembered, killed, and pulled from the womb.
5. Mifepristone or Mifeprex (RU-486) - a pill taken after conception that stops the absorption of Progesterone, a hormone necessary for sustaining pregnancy. Taken with misoprostol that causes the uterus to contract and eject the newly conceived baby.
6. Partial Birth Abortion - An abortive method where all the baby is delivered except the head. With its body outside of the vaginal canal, the doctor then uses a sharp instrument to pierce the back of the skull of the baby and scramble the brains, killing it. Then the baby is fully delivered.
7. Pregnancy Reduction - An abortive method of reducing the number of babies in the womb (twins, triplets, etc.) by injecting a poison into the heart of one or more of the babies while still in the womb.
8. Saline Amniocentesis - An abortive method where a highly concentrated salt solution is injected into the placenta. The baby takes the salt into the lungs as well as swallowing it. After more than an hour, the baby dies and the mother delivers the body a day or two later.
Almost all abortions are carried out in one the above fashion to prevent any scarring t the mother. GG on your sources.
Make of the information what <b>you</b> want.
(I was giving you information on how the "baby" could be kept alive if they mother didn't wish to keep it and not have it killed.)
*edit* Just to clarify because sometimes I can be confusing.
Aborting a pregnancy does not mean inducing an abortion those are two seperate entities. You can abort a pregnancy and use a C-Section as one possible option.
Do not confuse "Abort" with "Abortion" which are two different words and meanings.
To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry.
To cease growth before full development or maturation.
To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable.
To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable.
To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
Abortion
Termination of pregnancy and expulsion of an embryo or of a fetus that is incapable of survival.
Any of various procedures that result in such termination and expulsion. Also called induced abortion.
development or maturation.
An aborted organism.
I see no discernible difference. You can not Abortion a foetus, you can abort a foetus.#
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It seems we need some more medical knowledge to argue the 24-week option of <b>aborting</b> the "baby."
So I shall assist. I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hmm, maybe i jumped to a jumpable conclusion, was it me or did you use a word that meas kill, in a sentence in which you were trying to show how to keep it alive?
Did i not get what you meant, You aint really reffering to a previous post of mine...
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I refuse to even bother discussing with him anymore<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Again i ask, why?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then?
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
Given the proper technology a baby could "survive" outside the womb without having even been concieved there. So if the technology becomes available that a sperm and an egg articifically joined outside the womb could be placed in a vat and successfully matured would you then believe that a child is created immediately on conception? What if the technology became available to grow a child from a skin cell, should every cell on our bodies be considered a child then?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, at conception. And yes the technology to make a child out of a cell exists its called a clone. No they should not be considered a child. This is getting silly... Hw many times do i have to say something? sperm and eggs are not "sacred" But when they fuse to produce an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old... You see where im getting at? The embryo is a human, its just at a different stage of life. I think that is undeniable.
Main Entry: 1abort
Pronunciation: &-'bort
Function: verb
Etymology: Latin abortus, past participle of aboriri to miscarry, from ab- + oriri to rise, be born -- more at ORIENT
intransitive senses
1 : to bring forth premature or stillborn offspring
2 : to become checked in development so as to degenerate or remain rudimentary
transitive senses
1 a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term
2 a : to terminate prematurely : CANCEL <abort a project> <abort a spaceflight> b : to stop in the early stages <abort a disease>
- abort·er noun
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Abort does not mean kill at all. :-)
I am not sure where you are getting your definitions of the words from. However, that is what Merriam-Webster defines abort as. Terminating a pregancy is not always killing the "baby." I fail to see how you are assuming that.
I refuse to answer the second question on grounds of the fifth amendment.
I know you are not in the US, but that matters not, this board is. :-)
Regardless follow your own logic;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gametes through combination become a zygote which naturally grows to become an embryo. By your own reasoning gametes are human; they're two halves of one.
Why's that important? because it completes the chain. You cut off the first part of it because it's inconvienent to your arguement. Why are gametes exempt? "Because you say so" isn't grounds for an arguement :p
<!--QuoteBegin- 5th amendment+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> ( 5th amendment)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And abort means to kill
Grr... Want me to get loads of links showing you that abort means kill? I mean come on, now you are just haggling me... you have broken down the discussion to this?
<a href='http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD' target='_blank'>http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=195&dict=CALD</a>
Definition
abort (END PREGNANCY) [Show phonetics]
verb
1 [T] to stop the development of a baby that has not been born, usually by having a medical operation:
Do you think it's wrong to use aborted foetuses for medical research?
<a href='http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0020500.html' target='_blank'>http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/a/a0020500.html</a>
a·bort Listen: [ -bôrt ]
v. a·bort·ed, a·bort·ing, a·borts
v. intr.
1. To give birth prematurely or before term; miscarry.
2. To cease growth before full development or maturation.
3. To terminate an operation or procedure, as with a project, missile, airplane, or space vehicle, before completion.
v. tr.
1. a. To cause to terminate (a pregnancy) prematurely, especially before the fetus is viable. b. To cause the expulsion of (an embryo or fetus) before it is viable. c. To give premature birth to (an embryo or fetus).
2. To interfere with the development of; conclude prematurely: abort plans for a corporate takeover.
3. To terminate before completion: abort a trip because of illness; abort a takeoff.
In this discussion we are using Abort as the noun. In your own sourced deffinition <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->1 a : to induce the abortion of or give birth to prematurely b : to terminate the pregnancy of before term... 2a : to terminate prematurely<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I e to end it, to kill the foetus, thats what this thread is about. Abortion, or to abort the foetus ie to kill it. Does any one else see what Cyndane is on about? Coz i certainly dont...
If you dont want to answer or take part in discussion, with no reason given therefore no scope for any adaptation or change, why dont you just leave it at that?
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
First, what I chose to do or not to do it is not part of your "job" to tell me.
Secondly, not even once in the definition did I post does it say kill. Canceling (aborting) a pregnancy doesn't automatically mean death for the "child".
I thought we had cleared that up before. You said 24 weeks and they can live on their own, I told you what had to be done in order for the 24 weeks to work out. So, you have two options.
1. Accept the fact it would take a C-Section to successfully cancel (abort) a pregnancy before it is time. (Means woman can not have any more children)
<b> or </b>
2. Deny the fact that a C-Section would be the only way to successfully cancel (abort) a pregnancy. (The ignorance is almost as bad as another person who used to post)
With option #1, I rest my case and the information still stands.
With option #2, you fail to understand why option #1 is the only answer. I would reccommend googling C-Sections.
Side note: Gem your posts are probably some of the most interesting I have read todate on the subject. I thank you for your input.
Regardless follow your own logic;
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->an embryo which through natural growth will become a baby which through natural growth will become a cjhild, then an adult, then old<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
gametes through combination become a zygote which naturally grows to become an embryo. By your own reasoning gametes are human; they're two halves of one.
Why's that important? because it completes the chain. You cut off the first part of it because it's inconvienent to your arguement. Why are gametes exempt? "Because you say so" isn't grounds for an arguement <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
...
just ...
<!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
You insist Gem... One of 200 million eggs in your womb. It sits there in your ovaries. At some point, mensuration occurs, it oes in the uterus for a few days, then is expeleld. It is not even a full cell.
A sperm and an egg, the fuse THEN they are one, they become it.
A Zygote. It is in your uterous. It is life, how we were all created, it attaches to its mother, she nurtures it. It grows, at some point it has ammased enough matter to be called a foetus, its cells differentiate, grow. Thrive It has arms, legs, ears. It can sense.
After more growth it is ready to leave its now cramped environment. It is born, a baby, it will grow, a child and then a man so on and so on....
gametes are <b> NOT </b> human. They just arnt. Im not being pig headed, i dont say so, its a Tautology, and thats why it fustrates me thats y i have the dots ... Its just fundamentaly different, Zygote life, Gametes half cells. many of them at that
If you cannot see that a Zygote is fundamentaly different from two half cells.. i dont know... I might have to enroll you in a biology class or something Gem. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<span style='color:red'>EDIT</span>
So you are saying Abortion doesnt mean kill? You are saying that when we say , Lets have an abortion, the baby is just magically c-sectioned out and it lives hapily ever after in lala land? If you are on about removing the baby, without killing it, please dont use the word abort or abortion, you will just confuse thngs.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> (Cmeast)
I believe that still being inside their mother and unable to be seperated counts as 'extenuating'. Then it doesn't matter when it becomes a person.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Steel Troll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Steel Troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Erm, yes they can be separated and survive at 24 weeks (youngest ever recorded premature baby was at 21 1/2 weeks) they only need an incubator untill lungs start producing surfactant<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
A C-section is the surgical delivery of a baby through the abdomen, rather than the V*g*na, using abdominal and uterine incisions. It is also referred to as a Caesarean Section
:What Are The Risks?
A cesarean section is major surgery. Risks include an adverse reaction to anesthesia; internal bleeding; blood clots; injury to abdominal organs; and bladder, kidney, or uterine infection. (note doesnt say anything about not being able to have children)
: Will I need a c-section for my next baby, too?
A: Probably not. Since the conditions that lead to c-sections rarely repeat themselves in subsequent pregnancies, up to 80% of women can have a VBAC (vaginal birth after cesarean) the next time around. The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a vertical uterine incision, which is likely to rupture during labor (8-10%). The odds that a regular, horizontal uterine incision will rupture during a VBAC are very small (1%).
<a href='http://www.umm.edu/pregnancy/labordelivery/articles/csection.html' target='_blank'>http://www.umm.edu/pregnancy/labordelivery...s/csection.html</a>
My moms best friend had a csection. Two years later she had a second child, no problems. So no, having a C-section does not mean no more babies
Oh and Cyndane
What the Bloody 'ell r u on about? I didnt order you to do anything,
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If you dont want to answer or take part in discussion, with no reason given therefore no scope for any adaptation or change, why dont you just leave it at that?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Why dont you just leave it at that, that is a question, not an order. If i wanted you to leave i would have told you "why dont you just leave?, but i didnt. Im not a mod, i cant order you around.And i wasnt.
You stated that you dont want to take part in the discussion due to article 5, then dont. I dont even know what that means.
i know i do not have a job title , i did say you "Oh come on, now you are just being childish..." I did not say, DONT YOU DARE POST IN HERE!! I asked why, you said Article 5, as im im british you knew i didnt understand, but chosenot to elaborate.gg
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think my stance on this is by now guessable, no. But then in my view neither is the mother able to abort.
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
C'Mon ladies, I'm most curious for an opinion here <!--emo&:)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/smile-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='smile-fix.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think my stance on this is by now guessable, no. But then in my view neither is the mother able to abort. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You are also not a woman, thus your opinion matters not since he is looking for a woman's opinion.
I am only going to state this one more time for you.
An <b> (abortion) </b> means to prematurely kill the "baby." That is a fact.
<b> (Aborting) </b> or <b> (To abort) </b> a pregnancy prematurely is not the same as having an abortion. (See above definition or reference my previous posts)
Your mothers friend had a horizontal C-Section, which means it was a small incision along the pelvic bone right above the pubic area.
<!--QuoteBegin-steel_troll+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (steel_troll)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a <b> vertical uterine incision... </b>
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus.
*Edited* in proper grammar and spelling :-)
( verb, abort and abortion, noun. THe noun gives the word its meaning. "Abortion means to prematurely kill the "baby." That is a fact" Therefore, the two words are of the same root and lend itself to mean kill.)
Dont pick and chose from quotes, lets qualify it...here is the original full quote:
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The exceptions to this rule are women who needed a cesarean because of structural defect (such as a small pelvis or abnormally shaped uterus) and women who had a vertical uterine incision, which is likely to rupture during labor (8-10%)<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Approximately 0.1-3.2% of <b>ALL </b> women have a uterine abnormality. Factor out the ones in the baby bearing age range, now whats the chance of getting one in the the c-section baby saving procedure??And then not even all of these women have a severe enough uterine abnormality that warrants a vertical c-section. On top of this only 8 - 10% have the possibility of their uterus rupturing. Now thats an extreemly low number.
This means there is a very good chance that the woman <b>WILL</b> be able to have a second child no problem <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo--> <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Quoting myself, since you do not read.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm curious about something here:
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Cyndane smacked down Troll's response by being that of a man, and then proceeded to continue an argument about a definition, I'll just go ahead and give another man's opinion on this particular topic: the decision to have an abortion should be the woman's. For one thing, if abortions required the man's approval, some women might not be able to get abortions if their man runs out on them. Also, it's the woman's body; I've already said this, but I wouldn't try to influence my lover's decision either way in she got pregnant before we agreed upon it.
"I think the mother should be allowed to kill the fetus at any time during the pregnancy up until birth."
And I am not checking this thread again.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I'm curious about something here:
What about the Man's right to "abort"? Should a father be able to abort his legal responsibility to the child in the case where he feels he is "not ready"?
After all, in a case where the father is supporting the mother it could be argued that the Man's body is essentialy supporting the baby via work. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
As Cyndane smacked down Troll's response by being that of a man, and then proceeded to continue an argument about a definition, I'll just go ahead and give another man's opinion on this particular topic: the decision to have an abortion should be the woman's. For one thing, if abortions required the man's approval, some women might not be able to get abortions if their man runs out on them. Also, it's the woman's body; I've already said this, but I wouldn't try to influence my lover's decision either way in she got pregnant before we agreed upon it. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I do appreciate the response. However I thinkyou may have misinterpreted my question.
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not?
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->2. If a C-Section is done at 24 weeks, it will have to be a vertical cut, which means that the woman can no longer have any more children. Due to the fact it makes the uterus a lot more likely to ruputure during future pregancies.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I then researched and found that not to be true. A baby can easil be delivered at 24 weeks with both types of C-section, the vetical incision can cause complications, in only 8-10 % of the women <b> With</b> uterine abnormalities. Read the figures, they are undeniable. I dont see any flaw in them. I havnt found any resource which says you can only have a vertical incision at 24 weeks due to the babies position in the uterus. Point me to one please if you are so adamant...
So its not true, horizontal cuts are done. Only in cases with uterine abnormailities are vertical cuts practiced. Modern medicine has allowed this to be possible.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I Have One C-Section Does That Mean I Will Always Have to Have C-Sections?
Most certainly not! As mentioned before, if you get a low transverse incision on the uterus (horizontal incision) it may be safe for you to go through labor and have a vaginal delivery in the future. The main risk of vaginal birth after a cesarean section is uterine rupture or a separation of the previous scar on the uterus. In low transverse incisions the risk is very small -- approximately 0.4%. In this case, it is safe to attempt a vaginal delivery. There are some obstetricians who will give you the choice of an elective repeat c-section or trial of labor. You will not be offered this choice unless the obstetrician feels it is safe for you to attempt a vaginal delivery. Remember that the recovery period is shorter and the risks are fewer with a vaginal delivery. <b>If the previous c-section incision on the uterus is vertical, the risk of uterine rupture rises to 4-5% and a repeat c-section will be required </b>.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another source, the last boldend bit coupled with the fact that only 8-10 % of women have uterine abnormalities is especialy of value in nagating your argument. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Cyndane+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Cyndane)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
In order to successfully complete a C-Section at 24 weeks, the baby is not in the correct position neccesitating the vertical C-Section, which means there is a very good chance a woman can not have children anymore, since that type of C-Section weakens the uterus.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-Dr. Brian Lupton+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Dr. Brian Lupton)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->"Another factor increasing the number of caesareans is the possibility of saving premature babies. Thirty years ago, a baby weighing less than 1,000 grams had a slim chance of survival. "Now, more than half of babies delivered at 24 weeks, or weighing 700 grams or more, can survive," says Dr. Brian Lupton, clinical director of the Special Care Nursery at C & W" <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->said in 1996. Immagine now in 2005...<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The idea is not that the man has to give approval for the woman to have an abortion but that he can decide to absolve himself of legal (i.e. financial) obligations to the child if he decides that he is "not ready" to be a father. In other words it is the male equivalent of having an abortion ( a pseudo-abortion if you will).
I was curious to see the ladies response here because they all seem to be pro-choice. It seems a double-standard to then not allow a similar option for the father of the child does it not? <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I can't speak for anyone else, obviously, but I feel that the woman has the right to an abortion because she's the one who carries the burden. She's the one who has to go through birth or the abortion. All the man has to do is helping the woman when she needs it (which he should be doing before, as well, really), and have sex. If he wants a baby or not, then he should probably make sure the woman agrees with him beforehand...
I hate the term "pro-choice". I'm "pro-abortion".
You've yet to actually back up what you say with anything other than "because I say so".
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->gametes are NOT human. They just arnt.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Like I said; "because I say so". You don't give any actual fact or even a morsel of logic as to why eggs and sperm aren't considered alive or constitute if not as human life then potential human life.
Again and again you resort to "because I don't like that arguement" by saying 'its just fundamentally different' without any explanation or attempt of justification as if it was some defence which sadly... it's not :p
If you insist on trying to make people sound uneducated or indirectly throw insults in that manner then it not only comes off as uncourteous but perhaps shows that your arguements are too weak to allow you to continue in a non-aggressive manner :3
On another note no zygote, embryo or fetus is guaranteed to ever become born. While not a particularly pleasant part of nature, stillbirths and miscarriages do happen.
They are just potential life, as any gamete is...
I guess, for your sake, I'll round it up again for clarity.
2 living half cells grow together to make a single living half cell we call a zygote. The zygote grows by splitting and self-replication and continues in various forms till it's birthday time. every gamete is a potential baby and a living thing; just like a zygote and an embryo. Essentially without both gametes there is no life... zygotes, embryos,etc don't just magically happen; they're the product of two gametes.
All I ask for is a remotely acceptable piece of logic or even fact that shows why gametes are excluded from your mercy. Think about it before you try and answer with another "because they just are", "because it's different" or even "lololo learn biology noob". Those answers hold no explanation; they merely say "I don't know but I'd rather ignore the situation because it's inconvienent to me".
If you can't justify your own points then who do you honestly expect to convince? :/