How would you react to people who would be biologically correct in referring to the fertilized egg as a blastocyte or, to use a term that is correct but has some emotional charge to it - a parasite?

:bigbow::bigbow::bigbow:

A rose is a rose is a rose...A rose by any other name would still smell wonderfully sweet!

Who cares what the French think about Blessed Mother Teresa?

..."Abortion kills twice. It kills the body of the baby and it kills the conscience of the mother. Abortion is profoundly anti-women. Three quarters of its victims are women: Half the babies and all the mothers."
Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta

~"Those who supported slavery were free. Those who support abortion are already been born. That's how opression works." (Ronald Reagan)


~"...is it surprising that today we have become so morally blind (for wickedness blinds) that we save the baby whales at great cost, and murder millions of unborn children?"
(Alice von Hildebrand)


~"It is a poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
(Blessed Mother Teresa)

Obama's Virginia Defeat
 

Not good for Dems
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...inion_newsreel

Don't waste your time with this...I am no longer going to waste mine. Women are not incubators.

They are for 9 months, sorta. Sorry, biology is biology.

Who used the term incubator?...oh, that would be post #38 on this thread.

...but after searching out the definition of an incubator, I am happy to say it is a privilege and an honor as a woman and a mom to be labelled as such...THANKS!
1. (Medicine) Med an enclosed transparent boxlike apparatus for housing prematurely born babies under optimum conditions until they are strong enough to survive in the normal environment...http://www.thefreedictionary.com/incubator

Katz,
Even without seeing you, I have a feeling that you are not "an enclosed transparent boxlike apparatus". Sorry, you just don't qualify.

Good question! It always amazes me how some people take whatever spin they close to put on a political, religious, or scientific statement and declare that it is a fact.

Thanks for sticking up for me but I am not the one who labelled women as such. See #38 on this thread in which I take that to imply that it would be a derogatory label... I am just saying that I am honored to have fulfilled a similar function by providing a safe place for my own babies under optimum conditions until they are strong enough to survive in the normal environment
:thumbup:

????

Hi Helen..I am the one who said that it is always the woman's decision to make. I also said in post 38 that when you want to interfer in a woman's right of choice and want to force her carry an embryo you are casting her in the role of an incubator....meaning that you discard her choices and desires and want to reduce her to an incubator. I stand by that post.

Here are several definitions of PARASITE taken from the same dictionary website...http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parasite

~Biology- An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host....I suppose an unborn baby fits this definition...unless different organism means as in a different species or something like that. Either way, it doesn't seem like a derogatory comparison

~parasite [ˈpӕrəsait]-an animal or plant that lives on another animal or plant without giving anything in return
No problem here, not derogatory either


~ (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) an animal or plant that lives in or on another (the host) from which it obtains nourishment. The host does not benefit from the association and is often harmed by itDoesn't fit this definition for couple of reasons...the host is not often harmed by it and the host, mother, will definitely be benefitted by it with the joy of a brand new baby!

You don't think that parasitic behavior is deragatory? A parasite takes and does not give. This is not deragatory?

Katzpajamas: You are so well versed on this subject. Clearly the underlying basis for agreeing to an abortion is individual selfishness vis a vis individual responsibility permeates our country and is destroying our culture. The inexhaustive list of reasons as to why a woman wants an abortion can never cover up that fact because the basic decision comes down to "its me or my baby". Pro abortionist conveniently ignore the fact that "the woman's decision ostenibly occurs before conception. Say that and they instantly come back with well what if the woman is raped. Statistically how often does this occur?

Beside which this dramtic attack is meant to distract from the hundreds and hundreds of woman that use abortion as a method of conception and performed repeatedly by those well doers as Planned Parenthood whose organizational name is intentionally mischaracterized.

With all the methods available to women to prevent pregnancy, including educational opportunities starting with grade school you would think that women would be better at "planned parenthood". I guess all those sex education classes offered at school that liberals are so fond of ain't working.

As to the issue of unions the argument is not about workers its about the political influence unions have even over those workers who disagree with their union choices. Union members by theway that are beginning to see that Obama is not their friend. the recent decision by Obama to set track Keystone XL is an eye opener. Green trumps blue, environmentalist trump blue collar workers. For the upteenth, we find Obama throwing supporters under the bus. Referring back to one of my early statement Obama personifies this "individual selfishness" Poor Michelle she's probaby sitting at her desk tapping her lip with her index finger and thinking to herself" Naw he would do that to me?" "Would he? "

OMG-I guess you forget that it takes two to fertilize an egg. How about spreading some of that holier than thou about a woman's behavior to the man? How arcaic are you? Males also take those sex ed classes. GEEZ!!!

???????? Wow, are we angry here? What is an arcaic?

I only responded djplong comment about unborn baby being considered by science as a parasite. Then Helen said that some just couldn't accept facts. So I looked up parasite...and now I am OK with it...so now that I am OK with it, it becomes a derogatory term...??

While there are many different religious and philosophic beliefs and theories pertaining to when life begins, SCIENTIFICALLY life begins at conception. At the very moment of fertilization or conception, the moment when the father's sperm joins the mother's ovum, the fetus contains all the genetic information that baby will have for the remainder of his or her lifetime.

Any medical embryology book you reference will confirm that this new unique human creation is a defined sex and is alive, complete and growing.

At the very moment of conception, this creation is completely human, unique from any other living organism. This new developing baby has the same 46 chromosomes he or she will have until death. The fetus is a living human being who contains SEPERATE and UNIQUE chromosomal structures from it's mother.

That means they deserve all the same rights to life that other INDIVIDUALS enjoy. There can be no doubt that human life exists from the very onset of pregnancy.

No human being should be discriminated against based on his or her stage of development, place of residence (inside the womb) or arbitrary notion of "when life begins".

When you throw a rock into a pack of dogs, it is the one who got hit that howls, growls, or barks the loudest....

:eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_gold_cup::eclipsee_go ld_cup:

That is an opinion stated as a fact. Stating it as a fact doesn't not make it any less an OPINION. Mother Theresa also said it's good for the sick to suffer so that they could experience Christ's sufferring.

This is one reason that the term 'viability' gets thrown around a lot. Studies show that 1/3 of pregnancies end in miscarriages - so if you suddenly give 'rights' to a fertilized egg, do you see an explosion of negligent manslaughter cases (alleging the woman didn't take care of herself).

And what about twins? Now we're finding out that there are more cases of one twin surviving and absorbing the other 'failed' twin than was ever suspected. To be a little ridiculous, do we have judges on standby in the maternity ward to press charges against a newborn baby for killing it's sibling?

How does this view correlate with the public expenditures required to keep, for example, preemies alive? A single premature birth can cost anywhere from a quarter to several million dollars to keep that *born* baby alive.

It's a discussion we don't like to have in this country. Do we save one preemie and deny care to others out of cost control?

It's a terrible thought to think about the strictly financial aspects of the abortion debate. But, remember, abortion is something that is more common among the lower socioeconomic classes. The middle and upper classes generally have kids when they want them because of birth control. So, those lower on the totem pole who already can't afford health care are suddenly those people that you want to require even MORE health care?

It's one of the reasons I've long said that abortion is the symptom, not the disease.

Kinda like this opinion stated as fact?
Sure would like to see the medical book where this came from...

I personally don't care what the French think...

Mother Theresa also said it's good for the sick to suffer so that they could experience Christ's sufferring...Wow, another excellent quote from Mother Teresa of Calcutta. Thanks!

Your suppositions are not as hard to answer as you think.

It is the mother's body and she can eat what she wants. The baby should have a right to a great environment, but some people's parents are wonderful people and some are not. Life's not always fair. If the mother is neglectful, it's sad, but not always criminal.

The point you keep making about one twin absorbing another is unadulterated b.s., and you know it. If a child were to pick up a gun and shoot his 3 yr. old twin there would be nobody who'd consider THAT a crime of the child. So just stuff that one back in you duffel bag of imaginative scenarios.

Money?; you want to talk about the cost of keeping a person alive. Really? Get off that road before you lose your soul.

You've got no case counselor. I suggest you cut your losses.

From Richie:
Well, I might take issue with that bodily function.

My sister in law and her best friend were both pregnant at the same time. Both did drugs daily. Both of their sons are special needs children. Coincidence? Maybe, but my SIL had a previous child born normal and didn't do drugs when she was carrying him.

Nobody in the family will talk about it to each other, but it almost borders on criminal to me.

That's because leftists have indoctrinated young people over the years to "not JUDGE" others.

You're not supposed to identify nor confront behaviors that are illegal and health-destroying.

You're supposed to let them have their self-esteem however they built it.

The mother taking drugs IS criminal and the effect of her criminal act upon her child should be no different than if she gave a born baby drugs. It does not excuse killing the child before birth, which amazingly some think is just fine.

On that note, (OPINION) we are reaping the crop from sowing this CRAP...I LOVE (OPINION) this guy's remedy!

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0&fb_source=message[/ame]

DaleMN: Every day we wake up to the rising sun with the thought of how we will manage the course that day is a "good day" And as subsequent days fade away it brings us closer and closer to remember that the day's political events are just ,as my Jewish friends say, "bupkus".

Do you have a daughter? How could you read the post I responded to and NOT be angry? Blame it all on women...again. I repeat...it takes 2 to fertilize an egg and both sexes take sex ed classes. Why smear just women?

My post is the one you respond to and ask if I am angry? The rant of the person whose post I responded to did not make you ask why they was so angry? Oh, let me guess. You agree with the original poster. Now I get it.

I typed archaic wrong, please forgive my terrible terrible error. My original post said "how arcaic are you?" Given the context of the sentence, obviously it was not a noun, a thing. Archaic is very old fashioned.

I can't disagree....it's certainly enough for me....but I fear for the future of those younger of the 99% as the Repubs try to protect and advance only the 1%. :doh:

ladydoc: But abortion proponents make it clear that "its a woman's choice only" to decide to keep or abort. Its also a woman's choice to enter into a union that may or may not 'fertilize an egg. You suggest I am being archiac when I am actually just repeating what feminist have been telling woman for years. I am however old fashion enough to say that a man should man up and if he has shared in the responsibility of concepton then he needs to own up to it and do the right thing.

It is obvious that we are on different philosophical planes and will never come to an agreement.

You're making my point for me. Warning me about losing my soul? That's EXACTLY the response I expected and actually WANTED from you because it demonstrates just how volatile the subject matter is. In that respect I *completely* agree with you.

My point about the whole 'failed twin' thing was in regards to the idea that a zygote is supposed to have human rights - ALL of them - which is what I'm lead to believe the Mississippi proposal was all about.

But to something that happens more often, the part where you wrote about, for example, the mother's diet. If MI's measure had passed, you know SOMEONE was going to go along the lines of pointing out how a woman could be charged with negligent homicide if their infant died of neglect - THEREFORE the same standard should be exercised in defense of the fetus. As you said, it's not always criminal - but you know very well there are times it WOULD be.. And just where would we draw the line on that? Heck, it's hard enough drawing the line on viability (and that line moves with technological development).

Now, I give you credit for bringing up the "3 year old shoots sibling" scenario - took me a few seconds to find 37 *million* hits on or related to young children shooting others - and the arguments going on trying to decide just WHEN to hold someone responsible for their actions. I should have thought of that myself.

...a rose by any other name would still smell sweet :thumbup:
zygote...embryo...fetus...parasite...ALL of which have it's own seperate and distinctly unigue set of chromosomes-hence a totally seperate and distinct life from that of ANY other living thing. By the way-Not OPINION-It's BIOLOGICAL FACT...

BRILLIANT!!; What a concise and easy to understand commentary that even a socialist might understand.

Deserves it's own thread. Cogent and timely.

Rubicon never seems upset and angry with his posts. He was not ranting, as you put it. You also ended your tirade with the word GEEZ!!!

You want to talk about the man/father's responsibility?!

~A man who tries but falls behind in support payments is reviled as a “deadbeat” and uncaring parent. A women who refuses all responsibility and kills her baby faces no such insults, and no questions about good parenting and responsibility. Some will even laud her for her “choice” and frame it as a civil rights victory.

~“I am the father of an aborted baby and your article strikes very close to my heart. 5 years ago I was completely powerless to save the life of my unborn child and have suffered depression ever since.” - Marlon

~Many sympathetic emails were from women. “I have personally experienced watching a man helplessly discover his girlfriend aborted a child he wanted dearly, and not a THING could be done.” T-Muncy.


~Kathryn shared, “My brother-in-law's girlfriend decided she didn't want to be with him anymore. She flew to Seattle (we live in AK) to get an abortion at 6 months. My Brother-in-law was crushed!”


~Anastasia asked women to consider the man’s position by reversing the roles: “Imagine if a man did not want a baby, and the woman was forced to get an abortion. Outrageously unfair, right?”

~Another email noted: If the Supreme Court were to tell the average woman that the father of the child could kill her unborn child for reasons of “finding himself, or he’s not ready for a child, or he finds a child inconvenient to his career path,” watch the women of this country rise up!

http://justifiedright.typepad.com/ju...speak-out.html

~Most often it is best to have a man counsel a post-abortive father. He needs a safe and minimally gender-neutral environment in which to become vulnerable. He needs to know that he will not be judged or condemned and that everything he shares will be held in the strictest of confidence. Allow him to grieve his loss and shame. Let him cry as much as he needs to. The grief is as real as that caused by the death of a two-year-old toddler. This was his child and, in his heart, he instinctively knows it.

~Mark Twain said, "Forgiveness is the fragrance that the violet sheds on the heel that has crushed it." This is truly poignant for post-abortive parents. A crucial aspect of post-abortion counseling is the realization of divine forgiveness. This paves the way for forgiving others and - sometimes the hardest step of all - himself.

More proof of the devastation that abortion can cause for the daddys of these little humans
http://www.lifeissues.org/men/daddy.htm