Fetus Found in Gift Box

So, if you think that all human cells are alive, then it stands to reason that all human sperm and egg cells, based on their potential to become people, should have rights.

DoubleFacePalm.jpg


And, if a tapeworm was WITHIN the confines of my body, it has placed itself under MY jurisdiction. That means that any part of my body

Again, the biology issue...
It is not alive before birth, as I have so eloquently described, rinsed, and repeated several times now,

Biology for Dummies
And no, of course dead things do not grow. =)

yet the fetus grows.. yet you claim it's not alive...

When you're too stupid to realize you just refuted yourself, you should just stop posting.
OK. Im ignorant,

Finally, you've reached step one. Now you must admit that only sources less ignorant than yourself can cure you of your ignorance.

Sure. Are they important enough to kill another human being over? No.
Wow. Misogyny at its lowest.

I'd buy you a dictionary, but I'm pretty sure you can't read.
Women are not the sexual gatekeepers. It is not our responsibility to "be the brakes", chick

Of course, far be it from a retarded libertine like you to ever support any concept of personal responsibility. :rolleyes:
 
Fetuses cannot be murdered without injuring the woman or affecting the woman in some way. They cannot die as a result of their own actions while in the uterus.

They are NOT alive, because they are not individuals. They are not individuals, because they are subjected to the requirement of having another living body, and are also prone to being damaged beyond further growth by every danger that the body they live in is also prone to experiencing, and they also cannot simply be transferred over to a different body.

Pregnancy is merely a stage of creating life. It is not LIFE itself. The only individual rights that should be upheld and respected, are those of the woman who is experiencing the pregnancy, and not anyone or anything else. Period.

Again, you are on my ignore list (I am adding you right ed now) because you are nothing but a flaming fucking retarded ass wannabe little punk, who can't give a logical argument, and instead just throws ad hominem fallacies out, with fingers crossed that some equally idiotic moron out there will bite.

Get a life.

Happy Holidays, jackass.
 
They cannot die as a result of their own actions while in the uterus

That's not accurate. They can effectively strangle themselves.

They are NOT alive, because they are not individuals.

You are officially too stupid to bother trying to educate.
Again, you are on my ignore list (I am adding you right ed now) because you are nothing but a flaming fucking retarded ass wannabe little punk, who can't give a logical argument


:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
:lol:
 
Okay, really. Does it bother you to sound this uneducated in public? "Cell, tissue, organ, organism." I TOLD you to go look them up before you started flapping your gums, but did you listen? A tumor IS alive. It is living tissue, part of the living organism in which it exists, which is why it grows. Ditto for moles. As for diseases, they are caused by these things we call "micro-organisms". Note the word "organism" in there. They are alive, despite being microscopic. :slap:

So, if you think that all human cells are alive, then it stands to reason that all human sperm and egg cells, based on their potential to become people, should have rights.
Brilliant...

One more time for the mentally-challenged among us: cell, tissue, organ, organism. Since you clearly only use your Internet hookup to surf porn, I'll even look it up for you.

Cell (biology) - New World Encyclopedia

A cell is the basic unit of life, being the smallest unit of life that can carry on all life processes, including maintenance, growth, replication, and self-repair.

Tissue - New World Encyclopedia

Biological tissue is an aggregation of interconnected, morphologically, and functionally similar cells, and associated intercellular matter, that together perform one or more specific functions within an organism. Organs are usually composed of several tissues.

Cells work together harmoniously in a tissue to perform a function(s), such as epithelial tissue in the stomach producing the enzyme pepsin to help with digestion, or muscle tissue providing movement. Each cell not only performs actions for its own maintenance, self-preservation, and self-strengthening, but also performs specific actions that contribute to the larger entity, the tissue and the body. The body, on the other hand, supports the individual cell by providing food, oxygen, and other necessary materials, and by transporting away toxic waste materials. Each cell actively depends on the other cells in the body to perform their functions and thus keep the body in proper functioning order.

Organ (anatomy) - New World Encyclopedia

In biology, an organ (Latin: organum, "instrument, tool") is a group of tissues that perform a specific function or group of functions.

Organs, exemplified by such diverse components as brain, eyes, and liver, are one of several levels of organization in living organisms. A given organ is usually thought of as being a component of an organ system, a group of organs that work together to perform a set of related functions, such as the digestive system composed of the mouth, esophagus, intestines, and other organs. At a lower level of organization an organ is an aggregation of several tissues that interact to perform a specific function, such as the heart pumping blood or the stomach digesting food.
In biology and ecology, an organism (in Greek organon = instrument) is an organized, individual living system (such as animal, plant, fungus or microorganism).

There are two main classes of objects: non-living objects that are essentially inert and obey physical forces in a purely mechanical way (eg., water in oceans, sands in deserts) and living things (Luria et al. 1981). Individuals in the second group have the quality known as "life." This class of matter includes individuals with the capability of reproducing and producing new organisms that are more or less like themselves (Luria et al. 1981). The concept of organisms is one of the fundamental concepts in biology and is used as the basis for discussions of evolution, ecology, genetics, and so forth.

And while we're at it . . .

The concept of organisms is centered on the characteristic called "life." A difficult term to define, life is that quality or property that distinguishes living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate objects. Although universal consensus on a definition is lacking, biological properties common to the known organisms found on Earth (plants, animals, fungi, protists, archaea, and bacteria) are that they are carbon-and-water-based, are cellular with complex organization, use energy and undergo metabolism, possess a capacity to grow, maintain homeostasis, respond to stimuli, reproduce, and have various adaptations to the environment.

This is not rocket magic, Punkinhead. Sperm and ovum are cells. They are not separate, distinct organisms. They are merely components of a larger organism. They are alive, assuming that they are still functioning parts of a still living organism, but they are still only components of a larger whole. A fetus is not a component of a larger whole. He is himself an organism, separate and distinct from other organisms, despite being a symbiote with another separate and distinct organism.

Sorry, hun, but not everything gets those rights. Otherwise, we would all be on death row, every time a finger hits the keyboard. We lose millions of cells every time we touch something. Those poor, poor little babies. AWWWW..

Trust me, "hun", you do NOT want to go down a road where humans are denied rights on the basis of the desire of others to have them around. Judging by your posts here, the most useful thing YOU do is add body heat to the room. This is basic biology, and it's not as though I haven't tried to keep you from waving your ignorance of same like a banner in front of everyone.


Thats okay. I forgive you for being narrow about this. You are always welcome to think of a fetus as a person. I don't. Suck it, because I also do not give a rat's ass what your feelings towards me are, lol.. They are merely ad hominem attacks in lieu of an actual argument of logic.

Saw it, answered it, read Prole's answer. If you want to be gullible enough to believe that robot is sentient and just like a person while a fetus is akin to a tumor, I yield to the muleheaded determination of your imbecility. Go ahead and be dumb and make everyone laugh at you.

No- it circulates the mother's blood, also. It gets its oxygen from the mother. It has a 100% dependence on the survival of the mother, and the health and well being of the mother, to survive its gestational period of growth.

If fetuses circulate the mother's blood through their own bodies, how does that work when the fetus and the mother have different blood types?

Fetal Circulation

"Blood from the mother enters the placenta and comes in close proximity to the fetal blood that has returned from the fetus to the placenta through the umbilical arteries. Once the two circulations are in close proximity in the placenta, the oxygen (O2) and nutrients, like sugar, protein and fat molecules can move from maternal to fetal blood, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and waste products can move from fetal to maternal blood. The maternal blood returns from the placenta to the mother's veins for her systems to take care of the waste. The new well nourished fetal blood returns to the baby through the umbilical vein. The umbilical vein goes to the liver and splits in to three branches, one of which connects to the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. In this way the well nourished blood reaches the fetal heart to be sent to the rest of the body."

Notice that the maternal blood never enters or mixes with the fetal blood.

It is true that, like all parasites/symbiotes, a fetus needs a host to live. However, needing a host to live is not the same as not being alive.

And, if a tapeworm was WITHIN the confines of my body, it has placed itself under MY jurisdiction. That means that any part of my body that it has holed up in, is STILL my body. Since I have to take care of my body, then I have to take care of all parts of it, and rather than picking and choosing, I would opt to have instruments or medication introduced to rid me of the tapeworm. Same goes for a fetus that is unwanted. It is still within the confines of MY uterus. My uterus does not suddenly belong to the fetus. The fetus does not have property rights over my body. To say otherwise is preposterous.
It is subjected to the health and well being of my uterus, as well. If my uterus does not want it, it will dispose of the fetus/ embryo naturally.

Stop changing the subject. You jump back and forth from "Not alive" to "in my jurisdiction". The question here isn't what the location is, or who gets to be in charge of that location. The question is whether or not location determines life or lack thereof. Clearly, since you have to topic-hop, we both know that it does not, and an organism can be inside of another organism and still be alive.

Also, the uterus, even the healthiest ones, are not exactly the easiest places to adapt to, and lock on. That is (again) why 30% of all pregnancies will end in miscarriage before the woman ever knew she was pregnant.

So what? Because people die on their own, that makes it okay for you to kill them?

No a fetus is contained within the woman's self, because it does not have property rights to the WOMAN'S uterus. It does not have any guarantees that the woman will continue breathing throughout the 9 months of gestation.. It does not have any guarantees that she will not die or be seriously injured. It is completely dependent on her well being, and as such, cannot be considered a self contained individual.

Blah de blah fucking blah topic hop. Not interested in your lame-ass attempts to apply legal concepts to biology in an attempt to avoid the biological question you yourself raised with your ignorant, outdated assertion that fetuses are not living, distinct organisms, in direct conflict with accepted medical science.

Show me one fetus whose mama died at 28 weeks gestation, and still continued to a full term pregnancy.

Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight and gestational age: retrospective population based study -- Draper et al. 319 (7217): 1093 -- BMJ

"738 deaths occurred in 3760 infants born between 22 and 32 weeks' gestation during the study period, giving an overall survival rate of 80.4%. "

Guess they don't necessarily NEED the mama to live or to continue to a full-term pregnancy to survive, huh?

Hence- it is NOT self contained. It DOES need the mother's biological input. Or, it will not survive to birth. THIS is a medical fact.

Too bad you don't get to define the term "self-contained", Noah Webster. No matter how much you want it to mean "can survive under any circumstances in any location", it doesn't. If it did, YOU would not be self-contained, since you cannot survive outside the environment for which YOU are designed, either.

And clearly, it's NOT medical fact that he won't survive the birth.

It is not alive before birth, as I have so eloquently described, rinsed, and repeated several times now, for you.

Eloquently? Is THAT what you think your twaddle was? Eloquent?!

Your claim was that dead or alive it is not any less alive or less of an individual. Sorry, but dead things are not alive. That is a fact, honey buns.

Uh, no, I said nothing of the sort. I'm not surprised, however, that you missed out on English class while you were skipping Biology.

Something that needs to be inside of another thing, to be able to grow, is not an individual. An individual is capable of property rights.. Fetuses do not have property rights.

This isn't a matter of property rights, tweeko. Please stop trying to confuse the issue with your topic-hopping. This is biology, and human laws do not apply to biological fact.

But again- feel free to think of all fetuses that way, if you want to. I am not bashing you for thinking of fetuses as people, for YOURSELF, I am arguing for allowing everyone to have property rights over their own bodies, and not be pressured and abused into making decisions that force them through 9 months of gestation, weight gain, and painful child birth, all because you cannot accept that other people might not think of their fetuses as people. Do you understand?

Yes, I understand. You're an imbecile who can't understand basic science and cannot keep subjects separate and distinct long enough to make a coherent argument. That is what I understand, and trust me, everyone else understands it by now, too.

Fetuses do no harm? What??? Don't you know that pregnancy raises blood pressure, causes a great deal of weight gain, scars and mutilates the body, often tears the vagina, causes morning sickness, which gives women a whole plethora of other problems- dental issues, esophagal erosion, etc.. And I am sorry you never heard of gestational diabetes or ectopic pregnancies. Something close to one in a hundred women die during childbirth.
You are saying that these things are not harmful to the mother???

Sweetie, we've all realized how much self-hatred you harbor for your femaleness. We get it. We can see how much you truly hate children and motherhood, and how you seem to think you are doing your child an enormous favor merely by deigning to allow him in your life (and I'm sure THAT is an enormous treat). However, if you can reign in your visceral repulsion toward being a woman for just a moment, you will see that normal, healthy pregnancies do no more permanent damage to the woman's body than the simple process of aging does. Is it uncomfortable? Sure, but so is having periods every month (in fact, I find those more uncomfortable than I do being pregnant). Are we now to make laws viewing menstruation as an intolerable invasion of your rights because you had them "forced" upon you?

Do us all a favor and take your gender-hatred issues off the message board and back into group therapy where they belong.

OK. Well, you can call that an argument, I reckon. An individual is a singular person. Not two people living within one body.

According to whom? You? You think dogs and humans can cross-breed, so you'll excuse me if I'm not going to accept you as an expert on anything, including breathing in and out. Certainly your little linked definition says nothing about location.

OK This is not about my FEELINGS. I never once said I feel this way or that way. Your posts are all very much that way, in the sense that you continuously show your personal vindiction for me, just because you cannot agree to disagree on when personhood or life begins.

Actually, that's ALL you've said is your feelings. You feel that I think you're a bad person for having killed your child. And deep down, you feel that I might be right, and so you feel that you must defend to the death the woefully flawed reasoning that you used to make that decision, so that you can feel that you're not the bad person you're afraid you might actually be. It's fascinating psychology, but I'm not getting paid to deal with it, so save it and stick to the facts.

The truth is, I have no personal vindictiveness toward you. In all brutal honesty, you're nothing whatsoever to me except a halfwit who happens to have found the same website I have. You just need to believe that I'm judging you to avoid dealing with your latent guilt. If you had to accept that I'm just stating impersonal fact - and boundless contempt for your ignorance - rather than a personal judgement, you might have to actually face the possibility that you were wrong. Again, a fascinating psychological study, but not really my problem.

No matter how much YOU wish, not everyone is going to agree with you on this subject. I hate to burst your bubble, but that is reality.

I don't need everyone to agree with me, because unlike you, my self-image doesn't depend on convincing myself that I didn't make a mistake. All i need are the facts that you can't refute.

Oh wow, I mention ONE study on psychology, because it is how we relate to the human looking face (including primates) and you start talking about me giving you all kinds of bullshit information on FEELINGS???

Exactly how many studies on feelings was I supposed to wait for you to mention before I was allowed to comment on them? If only ONE study is exempt from response, what's the magical number before I get to remark on your post?

Yikes... I would just really REALLY like for you to try to keep up with the conversation, for once. This is SAD.

Sadder than your belief that dogs and humans can interbreed?

You have yet to post anything of medical relevance, or logic, really. Mostly, you just flame, because you are pissed off at my logic and facts, and cannot refute them. Boo, hoo! Here have a tissue- Then take a breather, and come back when you are ready to actually DISCUSS this, like a civilized human being would.

Sorry, sweetie, but just because you don't like something doesn't mean you get to pretend it didn't exist. Mostly, what I do is state biological fact - like the definitions of cells, tissue, organs, and organisms and the differences between them, like the biological definition of life, like the fact that the dog-faced people in carnivals are actually human with a medical condition called hypertrichosis, like the fact that beings from two different genuses cannot interbreed - intermixed with justly-deserved derision for your ignorance in needing such simple facts explained and proven to you.

If you have any logic or facts, it must have been hidden somewhere behind your belief that dog-human hybrids exist.

Tell me again how I'M the one who can't discuss. :cuckoo:

Thats cool, Fuck it- whatever- But she supports every choice you make, no matter how ridiculous you are in coming to that decision. If you want to go ahead and have 20 babies, feel free. Maybe she doesn't.
More than half of all abortions are had by women who already have children. But yeah- I guess they are all illiterate dickheaded bitches too.
Damn the luck. :lol:.

You said it, I didn't. Hey, if I kill my 14-year-old, is that morally okay because I allowed my 20-year-old child to live? Does that justify it?

That's an example of your "logic": abortion isn't a bad thing as long as you've already granted one child his life.

But hey, it's better than "dogs and humans can breed", so I'll grant that your posts are improving.

Honey, I am not the one throwing ad hominems left and right. I don't even know what you look like, but I can SEE the steam coming out of your ears.

Really? You can see me through your computer screen, can you? Or are you seeing me in your crystal ball, right next to the human-dog hybrids?

Fetuses are not alive- so there is no existence of life there. The only thing left is the fetus itself. Growing and alive are not interchangable.

That's your "logic", is it? "Fetuses aren't alive, therefore they aren't alive"? You call that an argument?

Growing is a hallmark of a living organism. Things which are not alive do not grow.

On a very basic, third grade level, sure.
And no, of course dead things do not grow. =)
But this is not a question of a fetus who is growing being dead. It is about the fetus not being alive YET.

There is no "yet" to it. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life, incuding that they grow. They are alive by definition. When a fetus ceases to meet those requirements, he is declared dead and removed from his mother's body before he can rot and kill her. What is it you think the doctor was checking for every month during pregnancy, when he examined you and listened to the baby's heartbeat and all the other stuff? He was making sure the baby was still alive. Call him and ask him, and he'll tell you the same thing.

Diamonds GROW, lots of minerals grow, as do mountains, and bubbles.. but they are NOT LIVING THINGS...They are NOT alive.

They don't grow in the biological sense, you nitwit. Oh my God in Heaven. You just get dumber by the moment, which is going to require rewriting of the laws of physics pretty soon. NOW you're telling me that you don't know how mountains are formed?

Once again, you have made the entire rest of your post unworthy of answering. Hell, you've made your post unworthy of pissing on.

Mineral growth. :cuckoo: I wouldn't have thought you could top the dog-human hybrid, but I stand corrected.
 
I don't klnow how familiar JD is with the local canine familiaris, but I wonder who she slept with to pass her science course that she'd rather believe it was her love affair with her dog that got her pregnant. I'm not APA certified, but methinks she has some serious difficulty accepting some of her decisions in life.
 
How is a fetus self-contained? It has its own separate genetic structure, its own separate brain, nervous system, circulatory system, digestive system, and respiratory system. While he is designed as a symbiote - or a parasite, if you prefer - to take the nourishment and oxygen he requires out of the system of another organism, that does not make him a part of that organism, any more than a tapeworm is a part of your body simply because it is designed to exist inside of it.

The placenta and umbilical cord are biological machines, if you will, akin to the respirators and IV units hospitals use to feed and oxygenate patients and designed to take those things from one place - the mother - and channel them into the fetus. The fetus is self-contained in that all of his systems work and keep him alive and functioning without any input from anyone else. By the scientific/medical definition, a fetus is alive.

OK- Go ahead and adopt one, then.

See- you can't do it. It is not an individual.



Being designed to live inside the body of another creature does not make something not alive. You can define fetuses as parasites if you wish, although they aren't really since they do no harm to the mother if everything goes well, but that doesn't make them non-living. Bacteria are living organisms, tapeworms are living organisms, the offspring of marsupials in their pouches are living organisms, but all of them are designed to live in an environment of attachment to the body of another creature.

Ah but even with the little joey situation- if the joey was climbing up the pouch (it climbs up the outside of the pouch, to get in there) then the kangaroo could easily flick it off, and decide against carrying and nourishing it. Also, are you aware that some animals will eat or kill their young, for no apparent reason? Bald Eagles don't always assist their young in the hatching process, as this live streamed video shows, even when the chick in the egg is pipping around, for days on end, and in this case, for over a week.

CBC News - British Columbia - Eagle hatch watch now drawing 10M hits a day

Sometimes, our national bird knocks its own young out of the nest, either before hatching, or before it is capable of flying. It's not barbaric.. its just nature. We are all animals, and we make decisions that are all our own to make.

I bet now, you are going to claim that we are not animals, either. :lol:




If fetuses circulate the mother's blood through their own bodies, how does that work when the fetus and the mother have different blood types?

Fetal Circulation

"Blood from the mother enters the placenta and comes in close proximity to the fetal blood that has returned from the fetus to the placenta through the umbilical arteries. Once the two circulations are in close proximity in the placenta, the oxygen (O2) and nutrients, like sugar, protein and fat molecules can move from maternal to fetal blood, and carbon dioxide (CO2) and waste products can move from fetal to maternal blood. The maternal blood returns from the placenta to the mother's veins for her systems to take care of the waste. The new well nourished fetal blood returns to the baby through the umbilical vein. The umbilical vein goes to the liver and splits in to three branches, one of which connects to the inferior vena cava, a major vein connected to the heart. In this way the well nourished blood reaches the fetal heart to be sent to the rest of the body."

Soooo.. If the mother's blood was not pumping, then where would that leave the embryo/fetus?? Gosh!! Gee whiz.. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this one out, here. I appreciate you trying to fancy up the fetal existence inside of a mother as one that does not depend on her to survive, but it is JUST NOT GOING TO WORK WITH ME. =)
Notice that the maternal blood never enters or mixes with the fetal blood.

It doesn't NEED TO MIX.. to be a NEED for the fetus to be able to continue growing.
If the woman's heart stopped, can you adopt her embryo?? No way...

It is true that, like all parasites/symbiotes, a fetus needs a host to live. However, needing a host to live is not the same as not being alive.

Some parasites can change hosts, or need to change hosts to survive. Other parasites die, if the host dies. Fetuses and embryos do not share these qualities, and are not parasites, by definition.
Furthermore, they also need the host to come into existence in the first place.
Unless you apply the logic that a fertilized egg is a person, as well, then you are being entirely subjective about what makes a person, a person.
Being sentient also does not make a person a person, because losing sentience does not cause that person to be any less of a person.

Besides, sentience, in and of itself, is a subjective matter entirely, and it is entirely debatable that some cognitive people may actually lack sentience- or at least, lack the amount of sentience required to be capable of achieving a relationship and mate, if the people we are discussing were the last ones on the planet.
I recently watched a show on television on a career sex offender who was ordered to take medical castration drugs. He also chose to undergo a surgical castration. HE has enough cognitive ability to understand that his actions, from his past, and his thoughts, lack the sentience required to be a real part of the human race. He understood that his actions and thoughts made him SUB human, and he underwent the surgery for those reasons.
Some people who live and breathe are only half alive. Sentience means much more than you want to apply to it.
Not that any of these important matters really apply in the cases of abortion, but they do give us reason to launch a full scale debate, on the philosophy of sentience vs personhood.
(I also do not know why I just wasted my time in saying anything like this- as you will more than likely say that I am discussing my feelings, and as such, and illogical or crazy, lol.. Lordy Lordy, I mean, AS IF sentience- your assertion of personhood- somehow has nothing to do with feelings.. MUAHAHAHA)

Stop changing the subject. You jump back and forth from "Not alive" to "in my jurisdiction". The question here isn't what the location is, or who gets to be in charge of that location. The question is whether or not location determines life or lack thereof. Clearly, since you have to topic-hop, we both know that it does not, and an organism can be inside of another organism and still be alive.

Go ahead, then- if location is a non-issue, then adopt an embryo, without taking home the woman it resides in.. Try it.


So what? Because people die on their own, that makes it okay for you to kill them?

Nobody is killing anything. <yawn> A fetus is not a person.. and it is clearly not a LIFE.
Plus, if I was to take an abortion pill, I would only be using it to salinize my uterus. What happens to the so called "individual" who "happens to reside there", is that "individual's" problem... And if my uterus happens to, at whatever time, and for whatever reason (coat hanger insertion, or the insertion of a spoon shaped spatula, or a vacuum, for spring cleaning, for instance) it out.. oh well, too bad, so sad.


Blah de blah fucking blah topic hop. Not interested in your lame-ass attempts to apply legal concepts to biology in an attempt to avoid the biological question you yourself raised with your ignorant, outdated assertion that fetuses are not living, distinct organisms, in direct conflict with accepted medical science.

Don't confuse morality with legality.. Your only problem here is that it is immoral, to you, to have an abortion. Blah de blah fucking blah back at ya.

I think it is rather immoral to give a child up for adoption, by choice. So fucking what? I'm not seeking to make a law against it!
I also think that the death penalty is highly immoral. I don't stand outside of the Capital building with a sign, even though I think it is unconstitutional, based on it being cruel and unusual punishment.
I think it is a severely immoral thing to continue having beer and cigarettes be legal for purchase on demand. That is a terrible way to go.. it leads to millions of deaths every year. Do I think it should be illegal?? Hell no!!!

I don't even think that cocaine should be illegal.

And I don't give a flying fuck how unsafe or immoral YOU think something is. That does not give you or anyone else grounds to suddenly make it illegal.



http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/319/7217/1093
Prediction of survival for preterm births by weight and gestational age: retrospective population based study -- Draper et al. 319 (7217): 1093 -- BMJ

"738 deaths occurred in 3760 infants born between 22 and 32 weeks' gestation during the study period, giving an overall survival rate of 80.4%. "

Guess they don't necessarily NEED the mama to live or to continue to a full-term pregnancy to survive, huh?

19.6% of them sure as hell do. So, Yes.

You wanna play those odds and pay for a woman to C-section her fetus, so that YOU can take responsibility, for such an unexpected birth??
I think not.
Too bad you don't get to define the term "self-contained", Noah Webster. No matter how much you want it to mean "can survive under any circumstances in any location", it doesn't. If it did, YOU would not be self-contained, since you cannot survive outside the environment for which YOU are designed, either.

Self contained... Is not a fetus.
A uterus is not even self contained.. how can a fetus, within a uterus, be self contained???? CRAAAAZZZYYYYYYYYYYYYY!!!!!!!!!! :cuckoo:
And clearly, it's NOT medical fact that he won't survive the birth.

OK... show me some stats on babies that are born at 25 weeks, survival rate WITHOUT MODERN TECHNOLOGY, which requires SOMEONE to sign on to the baby receiving.

Fucking halfwit.


Sweetie, we've all realized how much self-hatred you harbor for your femaleness. We get it. We can see how much you truly hate children and motherhood, and how you seem to think you are doing your child an enormous favor merely by deigning to allow him in your life (and I'm sure THAT is an enormous treat). However, if you can reign in your visceral repulsion toward being a woman for just a moment, you will see that normal, healthy pregnancies do no more permanent damage to the woman's body than the simple process of aging does. Is it uncomfortable? Sure, but so is having periods every month (in fact, I find those more uncomfortable than I do being pregnant). Are we now to make laws viewing menstruation as an intolerable invasion of your rights because you had them "forced" upon you?

Darling, I have had quite enough of you calling me a child hater, just because I support any decision a woman makes, and have an up close and personal understanding of what all parenthood entails.

That does not equate to being a misogynist, the way YOU clearly are. This hate definitely does not spawn from me.. You are the only one here who has done nothing but curse endlessly and spout ad-hominems.

You clearly have some kind of pathological hate for pregnant women who don't happen to WANT to be pregnant.. No matter what their end choice is, you will, WITHOUT FAIL, berate and belittle her life and spirit, the validity of her choices, and any circumstances she is having in her life will clearly mean nothing to you.
Unless, of course- she was raped or is on her death bed, of course..
Because we all know that the "pro life" agenda has nothing to do with being pro life and everything to do with being anti women misogynists.
I hope you are proud of yourself.
The truth is, I have no personal vindictiveness toward you. In all brutal honesty, you're nothing whatsoever to me except a halfwit who happens to have found the same website I have. You just need to believe that I'm judging you to avoid dealing with your latent guilt. If you had to accept that I'm just stating impersonal fact - and boundless contempt for your ignorance - rather than a personal judgement, you might have to actually face the possibility that you were wrong. Again, a fascinating psychological study, but not really my problem.

HAHAHA nice way to board yourself up, to avoid feeling like shit for being a misogynist. Jeez.. will wonders never cease..

LMAO!!!


I don't need everyone to agree with me, because unlike you, my self-image doesn't depend on convincing myself that I didn't make a mistake. All i need are the facts that you can't refute.

What facts? All you ever do is flame.

Flaming is not posting facts.



Tell me again how I'M the one who can't discuss. :cuckoo:

After deleting five or more paragraphs of your ranting at a time, I would say that you are not discussing anything at all..
I have deleted at least 45 of them in this post alone.



You said it, I didn't. Hey, if I kill my 14-year-old, is that morally okay because I allowed my 20-year-old child to live? Does that justify it?

WTF?? Your 14 year old is a person, not a fetus. You can give a 14 year old to a friend when they are driving you up the wall. You can't do that with a fetus.
Growing is a hallmark of a living organism. Things which are not alive do not grow.

If you think that everything that grows is alive, then it stands to reason that you also think that minerals are alive, or salt crystals.

Booo..


There is no "yet" to it. Fetuses meet the biological requirements of life, incuding that they grow. They are alive by definition. When a fetus ceases to meet those requirements, he is declared dead and removed from his mother's body before he can rot and kill her. What is it you think the doctor was checking for every month during pregnancy, when he examined you and listened to the baby's heartbeat and all the other stuff? He was making sure the baby was still alive. Call him and ask him, and he'll tell you the same thing.

Where is it's death certificate????

Diamonds GROW, lots of minerals grow, as do mountains, and bubbles.. but they are NOT LIVING THINGS...They are NOT alive.

They don't grow in the biological sense, you nitwit. Oh my God in Heaven. You just get dumber by the moment, which is going to require rewriting of the laws of physics pretty soon. NOW you're telling me that you don't know how mountains are formed?

Soooo... Now you finally admit that things that do not grow ON THEIR OWN are not alive. Thats a start.

Actually, Mountains are made from volcanoes, but we do not need to get into that. We know that without volcanoes, mountains could not exist.
 
OK- Go ahead and adopt one, then.

See- you can't do it. It is not an individual.

Awesome...

Not adoptable->not a person

No adult and no child not up for adoption is an individual.

You get dumber with every post.
Other parasites die, if the host dies. Fetuses and embryos do not share these qualities, and are not parasites, by definition.

wow... you must be trying really hard

No way you're serious...
Actually, Mountains are made from volcanoes, but we do not need to get into that. We know that without volcanoes, mountains could not exist.

there is no facepalm big enough...
 
I had to look... :eek:

Why oh why do some people even bother letting their fingers even touch a keyboard, in the viscinity of a discussion board is beyond me.

The day you adopt and bring home an embryo, get back with us, Proletarian.

And yes- that is true about parasites. They CANT survive without their host.

A fetus is offspring, so it is not at all a parasite. It surely has a lot of the same qualities as a parasite, but it simply is not one. It is certainly parasitic, but that, in no way, causes it to be "a parasite", by definition. =)
 
Why oh why do some people even bother letting their fingers even touch a keyboard, in the viscinity of a discussion board is beyond me.

Yet, here you are talking about human-dog hybrids and how nothing can grow that's not alive but babies grow but aren't alive and the disabled and infertile women aren't people.

When you finally figure out why you do what you do- we still won't care. Did you finish your vocabulry lessons? Can you now define cell, tissue, and organism? What about SNPs? Are you ready to tell the class about liquid breathing?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top