Mom leaves abortion clinic after seeing ultrasound

[9aces]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.

I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.

 

[Skylar]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.

Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.

Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?

Feel free to educate us on the matter.

And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?

Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.

If not, why not?

You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.

Why?

 

[Skylar]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Women considering abortion should be shown an ultra sound so they know that what's inside them is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

 

[Zoom-boing]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision.

And if a woman has the ultra sound then changes her mind and doesn't have the abortion ... why do you have a problem with that?

 

[Skylar]

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision.

So you admit that this has nothing to do with medical necessity or medical safety.

Right?

 

[Zoom-boing]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.

I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.

I do see your point ... but a heartbeat is a pretty convincing argument that the unborn is alive.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

Which, of course, is the goal of the ultrasound. Not medical safety nor necessity.

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision.

So you admit that this has nothing to do with medical necessity or medical safety.

Right?

Yes, it's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision about a medical procedure that will kill an unborn human being. You don't think she should have all the facts before making that decision? Why not?

 

[Skylar]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?

You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.

You can't. You have to ask yourself why.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?

You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.

You can't. You have to ask yourself why.

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

btw, stop cutting off the rest of my posts .. you know, the part where I answer your question. My laptop screwed up which is why it posted that sentence several times.

I notice you continue to avoid my question .. why don't you want a woman to be fully informed of what her decision to abort actually entails?

 

[9aces]

That progressives believe abortion - a procedure which ends the life of another human being - shouldn't be emotionally traumatizing and difficult for the women speaks volumes.

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.

Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.

Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?

Feel free to educate us on the matter.

And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?

Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.

If not, why not?

You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.

Why?

Indeed. You could use the education.

What is life? There are a number of definitions, I kinda like this one, but we can argue any of them if you'd like.

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

Now, could a skin cell meet that qualification? No.

Is a newly formed zygote equally human to said teenager? Yes, they are both exactly the same....1 member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. A is A.

No, heavy flow is no indicator of crime, which btw was pretty silly of you. If you're going to act like you're not totally outclassed in this discussion, at least try.

As to your freezing scenario, too vague.

As to child endangerment laws, based off how the laws are currently written, they would not be.

 

[Skylar]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?

You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.

You can't. You have to ask yourself why.

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

How so? If she doesn't look at the ultrasound, how does that effect her medical safety or the safety of the procedure in the slightest?

It doesn't. If she looks, if she doesn't look, it has no relevance to the procedure's safety. Or any issue of medical safety.

Its completely unnecessarily medically.

 

[9aces]

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.

I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.

I do see your point ... but a heartbeat is a pretty convincing argument that the unborn is alive.

Actually it's not. The unborn is alive well before a heart develops.

 

[Zoom-boing]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?

You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.

You can't. You have to ask yourself why.

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

How so? If she doesn't look at the ultrasound, how does that effect her medical safety or the safety of the procedure in the slightest?

It doesn't. If she looks, if she doesn't look, it has no relevance to the procedure's safety. Or any issue of medical safety.

Its completely unnecessarily medically.

I notice you continue to dodge my question and believe that woman shouldn't be fully informed of what the abortion they are going to get actually entails.

How very progressive of you.

So when they perform abortions, they go in blind? No ultra sound to guide them?

 

[Zoom-boing]

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being.

Oh please, the more you post the more ridiculous you get.

An unborn

And it's why their heads explode when it's suggested that an ultra sound be part of the information given to a women prior to her getting an abortion, so she can make a fully informed decision. I thought progressive were in favor of educating the masses?

Yes, but that's why you fail in this.

You're advocating a medical procedure that has no use...medically. I understand why you want it, but think about it. Will this simply be another way to further demean what life is by how it's viewed? How the procedure is done?

No, stick to the facts of what the decision is, and don't be swayed by shiny things that sound good but in the end do little.

Disagree. Providing an ultra sound to women who are considering an abortion often results in the abortion not occurring ... and that's a good thing. An ultra sound will show them that what they are carrying is, in fact, a human being not some blob of cells.

I understand your point. Mine is that depending on how the procedure would be performed, you can "demonstrate" it's not really human after all, and will simply be another case of dehumanizing the process.

I think if you'll sit down and think hard about this for a few moments, you'll see my point.

I do see your point ... but a heartbeat is a pretty convincing argument that the unborn is alive.

Actually it's not. The unborn is alive well before a heart develops.

Yes, I know. I disagree with you about ultra sounds, I believe they should be part of the process to fully inform the woman although I do see your point as well.

 

[Skylar]

That's why they use terms like clump of cells and zygote...it helps dehumanize it

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.

Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.

Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?

Feel free to educate us on the matter.

And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?

Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.

If not, why not?

You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.

Why?

Indeed. You could use the education.

What is life? There are a number of definitions, I kinda like this one, but we can argue any of them if you'd like.

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

And how does

Now, could a skin cell meet that qualification? No.

Which qualification does it not meet? Specifically? Skin cells can grow. Reproduce. Have functional activity. And change preceding death. It also metabolizes, responds to external stimuli......all hallmarks of life.

And a human skin cell is undeniably human in its DNA. So its 'scientifically' human life.

It meets everyone of your criteria. Thus, by your own standards, a skin cell is human life.

Is a newly formed zygote equally human to said teenager? Yes, they are both exactly the same....1 member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. A is A.

So per you there is no difference. Okay.,then why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

This would be the third or fourth time I've asked you? And each time you've awkwardly avoided the question.

What about my question induces such....squimishness?

No, heavy flow is no indicator of crime, which btw was pretty silly of you. If you're going to act like you're not totally outclassed in this discussion, at least try.

A heavy flow, especially a late one is an indication of a spontaneous abortion. A fertilized egg, a human being, dying.

Why wouldn't there be an investigation? If I went into a toddler's room and there was a pile of blood where the child was supposed to be.....the police would certainly be called. And would certainly investigate.

But a heavy flow indicating a 'human being' had just died, no.

Why? How are they different? A = A according to you.

As to your freezing scenario, too vague.

Not at all. Embryos are frozen all the time. Its one of the most common methods of storage.

But if I did the same to a 1st grader, put them in a freezer and stored them for later.....

.....I might run into problems. Per you, its the same thing. But why isn't it?

As to child endangerment laws, based off how the laws are currently written, they would not be.

A situation where i throw 6 kids into a room and hope one survives? That's child endangerment by any standard of the law.

But unsuprrisngly, emplanting embroys, which you insist are all human beings equivilant to any teen ager.......isn 't. Despite the fact that almost always, at least some of the embryos are going to die.

And the doctor who put them there knows it. The mother knows it. Wouldn't that be mass murder?

If not, why not. Remember, you can recognize NO distinction between them and a fully grown person. A rational person could.....but you're not allowed to.

'Educate' us.

 

[Skylar]

It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision
It's necessary to provide a woman all the information she needs to make a well informed decision

But none of that is a medical necessity nor has a thing to medical safety, correct?

You're avoiding my question like it was on fire for a reason. If your argument had merit, you wouldn't need to squirm. You could openly, honestly answer my question.

You can't. You have to ask yourself why.

I did answer your question. It's medically necessary to fully inform the woman.

How so? If she doesn't look at the ultrasound, how does that effect her medical safety or the safety of the procedure in the slightest?

It doesn't. If she looks, if she doesn't look, it has no relevance to the procedure's safety. Or any issue of medical safety.

Its completely unnecessarily medically.

I notice you continue to dodge my question and believe that woman shouldn't be fully informed of what the abortion they are going to get actually entails.

I haven't said a thing about being 'fully informed'. I'm asking you questions about an ultrasound being *medically necessary' or having any relation to medical safety.

And you can demonstrate no way in which forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound would be either. You simply assert that it is....because.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

In addition to not being medically necessary, ultrasounds do not have the effect of changing the minds of women seeking abortion:

'It is an article of faith among abortion opponents that when women seeking abortions see evidence of a living thing in their bodies, some change their minds. This is fed by anecdotes from so-called crisis-pregnancy centers run by religious groups promoting abortion alternatives.

But studies in clinics indicate that viewing an ultrasound does not change minds, says Ms. Weitz, the sociologist.

“The women who come in for an abortion know what they are doing,” she told me. Six in 10 women seeking abortions, she added, have already had a baby.

“Women are having abortions because of the conditions of their lives, their economic situation, their partner situation, their age,” she said, “and the ultrasound doesn’t change that.”'

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/sunday-review/ultrasound-a-pawn-in-the-abortion-wars.html

“For a long time it was about shaming women,” Ms. Nash says of the evolving ultrasound proposals. “And now it’s about humiliating women.” ibid

Indeed.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I haven't said a thing about being 'fully informed'. I'm asking you questions about an ultrasound being *medically necessary' or having any relation to medical safety.

And you can demonstrate no way in which forcing a woman to look at an ultrasound would be either. You simply assert that it is....because.

I have. I"ve answered your question, you don't like my answer because it doesn't fit your criteria. Too bad. I believe women should have all the information available prior to making the decision to abort. You apparently don't or you'd answer me.

So when they perform abortions, they go in blind? No ultra sound to guide them?

 

[9aces]

That and "person". That's the great trap most people who think abortion is wrong on moral grounds fall into. They start arguing using the same terminology, and once they do, they've lost.

More accurately, we don't summarize humanity solely be DNA. If such were the case, then any skin cell would be a human being. Or at the very least, human life.

Ah...one has fallen into the trap. Excellent.

Does a skin cell have the capabilities ascribed to species? You know, the things that define life. Do you know what are the determining factors for life?

Feel free to educate us on the matter.

And um, I'm still waiting for you to explain why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

And wouldn't freezing embryo be kidnapping? Or at the very least, reckless endangerment?

Wouldn't any especially heavy flow from a woman be a crime scene....as a human being just died per your estimation.Or at least, plausibly could have.

If not, why not?

You seem very, very reluctant to discuss these issue. Ignoring any mention of them or refusing to answer these questions everytime they're posed.

Why?

Indeed. You could use the education.

What is life? There are a number of definitions, I kinda like this one, but we can argue any of them if you'd like.

the condition that distinguishes animals and plants from inorganic matter, including the capacity for growth, reproduction, functional activity, and continual change preceding death

And how does

Now, could a skin cell meet that qualification? No.

Which qualification does it not meet? Specifically? Skin cells can grow. Reproduce. Have functional activity. And change preceding death. It also metabolizes, responds to external stimuli......all hallmarks of life.

And a human skin cell is undeniably human in its DNA. So its 'scientifically' human life.

It meets everyone of your criteria. Thus, by your own standards, a skin cell is human life.

Is a newly formed zygote equally human to said teenager? Yes, they are both exactly the same....1 member of the species Homo Sapiens Sapiens. A is A.

So per you there is no difference. Okay.,then why if two cells are the same thing as as say, a teen ager......then why when multiple embryos are implanted in a woman's womb on the hope that some will grow to maturity.......that's not child endangerment?

Mass murder unless everyone of them grows?

This would be the third or fourth time I've asked you? And each time you've awkwardly avoided the question.

What about my question induces such....squimishness?

No, heavy flow is no indicator of crime, which btw was pretty silly of you. If you're going to act like you're not totally outclassed in this discussion, at least try.

A heavy flow, especially a late one is an indication of a spontaneous abortion. A fertilized egg, a human being, dying.

Why wouldn't there be an investigation? If I went into a toddler's room and there was a pile of blood where the child was supposed to be.....the police would certainly be called. And would certainly investigate.

But a heavy flow indicating a 'human being' had just died, no.

Why? How are they different? A = A according to you.

As to your freezing scenario, too vague.

Not at all. Embryos are frozen all the time. Its one of the most common methods of storage.

But if I did the same to a 1st grader, put them in a freezer and stored them for later.....

.....I might run into problems. Per you, its the same thing. But why isn't it?

As to child endangerment laws, based off how the laws are currently written, they would not be.

A situation where i throw 6 kids into a room and hope one survives? That's child endangerment by any standard of the law.

But unsuprrisngly, emplanting embroys, which you insist are all human beings equivilant to any teen ager.......isn 't. Despite the fact that almost always, at least some of the embryos are going to die.

And the doctor who put them there knows it. The mother knows it. Wouldn't that be mass murder?

If not, why not. Remember, you can recognize NO distinction between them and a fully grown person. A rational person could.....but you're not allowed to.

'Educate' us.

Skin cells cannot reproduce. Reproduction requires specific cells with specific functions in combination with cells of a separate individual to create a new individual. Something beyond skill cells capability. Do try harder next time.

As to the child endangerment bit you seem stuck on...I pointed out that based off current laws...it's not. It would not be child endangerment in any case as the womb is the natural place for their development. Since six live births have been recorded on many occasions...definitely no.

A heavy flow is not indicative of any of the sort. If you're going to be really stupid, there's not much point in denoting such can occur with virgins, who have neither conceived nor had any opportunity to do so. Please try to be less stupid.

You don't seem to have the least idea of what A is A means. Do look it up and educate yourself a bit before trying next time. HINT: Aristotle.

Why is it different in freezing an embryo and a 1st grader? Can you return said 1st grader to it's living state after freezing? No, come back with that question when it's possible.

Do try harder, or get some help. This is too easy.