Prolifers how much control do you want?

[Plasmaball]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

[Socrates]

You put too way much effort into posting such a stupid question.

[Wino]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?
All that goes on today and it is not being monitored. No, I'm not for monitoring it either!

[ddye]

You put too way much effort into posting such a stupid question.
I am pro life, but the question makes a certain amount of sense. Are you saying that you don't care if a woman abuses her unborn baby as long as she carries it to term?

Doug

[Frau Blucher]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?


How is it "anti-conservative" to be prolife? I don't think those against abortion are wanting to "control" the woman, it's about the whole not killing thing. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
What I don't understand is your need to call a fetus a parasite...

[Plasmaball]

My question is if one cares so much about the fetus/parasite should they not make laws about this too?
Why not take total control.
Socrates I will ask u to retract or I will report u.

[animalnut]

I believe life begins at conception, which is obviously why I'm pro-life.

As far as smoking, drinking and eating too much, driving too fast, and any other activity that could potentially harm one's health, that is something all men and women need to be responsible for. The government should not be dictating those types of behavior.

[pennysworth56]

I would not have an abortion as it is was wrong for me.
But I think that there should be some restrictions to the procedure. There should be no late term abortions unless the mothers life is actually in danger, should have to have two doctors opinion that it is so.

If you want an abortion then you have to have it done by the third month. As far as rape or incest then you should be able to have an abortion but only if you file a report and agree to prosecute the prep. It you do not want to be bothered with going to court then no abortion, you can always adopt the baby out.

penny

[B' en Natuf]

It's you prodeath libs who want the ultimare control over the life and death of innocent children. I have no interest in controling the timing of when a child should die. I want no control over their deaths. I want them to live.

[Plasmaball]

How is it "anti-conservative" to be prolife? I don't think those against abortion are wanting to "control" the woman, it's about the whole not killing thing. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
What I don't understand is your need to call a fetus a parasite...

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.
2)oh I understand it. It just goes agaisnt conservative ideals. It's no different than liberals banning smoking or transfats.
3)because it's my personal opinion that a fetus is a parasite. You do realize they're good,bad,and nuetral parasites in the world?
Oh wait science is ew!!!

[CaptainCrunch]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

In your case I'd be willing to reconsider abortion, I guess it would be a post gravidas abortion actually. But just this one time.



;)

[teekay]

Just like you can't force someone to be a good parent, you can't force a woman to be a good mom to be.

Parents of children of all ages drink and smoke around their kids. That doesn't mean they should be able to kill them.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain .....

noob, join my Iphone dev team and experience 3.0 beta 5.....

[Plasmaball]

I believe life begins at conception, which is obviously why I'm pro-life.

As far as smoking, drinking and eating too much, driving too fast, and any other activity that could potentially harm one's health, that is something all men and women need to be responsible for. The government should not be dictating those types of behavior.

And why is it so hard to let a pregnaut mother choose?
You have no problem with them drinking and smoking and killing themselves that way

[fava]

Obama is great comedy unless you have a comedy show on tv. Then you never mention him in comedy routines otherwise you are a racist.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

My question is if one cares so much about the fetus/parasite ....



a fetus is a baby, a parasite is a liberal on welfare

[WildRose]

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
If you call a fetus a parasite you don't know the definition of either and are incapable of a rational discussion on the issue.

[Plasmaball]

I would not have an abortion as it is was wrong for me.
But I think that there should be some restrictions to the procedure. There should be no late term abortions unless the mothers life is actually in danger, should have to have two doctors opinion that it is so.

If you want an abortion then you have to have it done by the third month. As far as rape or incest then you should be able to have an abortion but only if you file a report and agree to prosecute the prep. It you do not want to be bothered with going to court then no abortion, you can always adopt the baby out.

penny
You didn't answer the question.

[Plasmaball]

If you call a fetus a parasite you don't know the definition of either and are incapable of a rational discussion on the issue.

Hehe making it personal and not answering me.
Many similar things between a fetus/ parasite.
Not really worried if you think I am wrong.
You don't see me bitching over prolifers saying it's murder do u?
One can not use extreme vocabulary and not expect it on return.

[margaretms]

And why is it so hard to let a pregnaut mother choose?
You have no problem with them drinking and smoking and killing themselves that way

It seems that if the issue returns to the states (and, therefore, people can travel to get abortions), there might have to be some kind of agency or bureau where women register their pregnancies--if the law is going to be enforced effectively.

[ChaosControl]

My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

This is a foolish statement. That'd be like saying to be opposed to rape or theft is anti-conservative or anti-libertarian. The idea is basically harm none, do what you want as long as you harm none. Abortion harms, it is the murder of an innocent life. It isn't about restricting the mother, it is about protecting the life of an innocent. To say that the conservative or libertarian position is anti-life is the same as saying that the belief all forms of murder or all forms of rape should be legal is the libertarian/conservative position. Such b.s.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.
Okay, this is a legitimate question.

My view on the matter is you can't monitor a person like that, same as we can't nor should we monitor the parent of an already born child to make sure they provide their kids with the right nutrients daily and that they don't smoke around the kids. Rather the idea is simply the act of abortion is illegal, therefore there are no legal abortion clinics. I don't really know a practical view in terms of induced miscarriages or back alley abortions, I mean how were you to know they were pregnant to begin with, you can't monitor all the time.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

You can't trust them to do anything. But there is the practical side to the question. I say ban the procedure, make it illegal. But you can't go around spying on people to make sure they don't commit the act in private. Yes I want to protect the innocent from harm, but you can't create a police state to do that.

[WildRose]

How is it "anti-conservative" to be prolife? I don't think those against abortion are wanting to "control" the woman, it's about the whole not killing thing. I don't see what's so hard to understand about that.
What I don't understand is your need to call a fetus a parasite...Much of conservatism is based on the premise of "Personal Responsibility" and "Liberty requires Responsibility". That is why being pro life is a very conservative position.

The woman "chooses" (except in cases of rape) to participate in an activity she knows damned full well may result in a pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for one's actions then dictates that if you get pregnant you are "responsible for the consequences of your actions".

These are anathema to liberal ideology.

As for his insistance upon mislabeling a fetus as a parasite, it's simply a further attempt to dehumanize the unborn thus making it more palatible to kill them. Afterall a parasite is an infestation of a foreign life form causing disease upon the host.

Of course, a fetus in no way resembles a parasite other than it's total dependancy upon the mother for it's well being. However by no medical or bilogical definition is an unborn child a parasite since it's not a "foreign organism" nor "causing disease". Barring the extreme there are great benefits to the mother's long term health from child bearing due to the hormonal changes that occur which greatly reduce such things and many forms of cancer.

[johnrocks]

I'm pro life which surprises some I guess but to me, you have choice of YOUR life and if you succeed then you get rewarded and if you fail then you suffer the consequences, the woman's choice was when she engaged in sex, she gets pregnant, that's part of the consequences and to some of us,it's a blessed reward and to some it's a consequence of bad decisions and poor planning, now, another life is involved,you don't get to choose to end another life,imho. Now, when does life begin,some say at conception,some doesn't think life begins until the sound of the baby crying is heard, how do we compromise between such a wide range of opinion on a national level? I think the closest compromise would be at the State level and hopefully most would at the very least outlaw late term abortions because once the nervous system is formed and the heart is beating, I don't see how people can deny that's life.

[Plasmaball]

a fetus is a baby, a parasite is a liberal on welfare

Deflection. Try answering the op. Why are direct answers so hard for people to give?
It's like pulling teeth. Seems like it's all deflect this, character attack that, and let's ignore an actual nice debate.
Divide divide divide

[grapabeaux]

Deflection. Try answering the op. Why are direct answers so hard for people to give?
It's like pulling teeth. Seems like it's all deflect this, character attack that, and let's ignore an actual nice debate.
Divide divide divide

Pro-lifers don't want to make choices for women.

[Ex_Spy_Guy]

Deflection. Try answering the op.....




try joining my IPhone DevTeam

[Plasmaball]

I would suggest you research parasites, they're quite a few that act in concert with the host.remove the protective lining surrounding the fetus/parasite and what happens? The mothers body will kill it and remove it. Making it a foregein organism.


Much of conservatism is based on the premise of "Personal Responsibility" and "Liberty requires Responsibility". That is why being pro life is a very conservative position.

The woman "chooses" (except in cases of rape) to participate in an activity she knows damned full well may result in a pregnancy.

Accepting responsibility for one's actions then dictates that if you get pregnant you are "responsible for the consequences of your actions".

These are anathema to liberal ideology.

As for his insistance upon mislabeling a fetus as a parasite, it's simply a further attempt to dehumanize the unborn thus making it more palatible to kill them. Afterall a parasite is an infestation of a foreign life form causing disease upon the host.

Of course, a fetus in no way resembles a parasite other than it's total dependancy upon the mother for it's well being. However by no medical or bilogical definition is an unborn child a parasite since it's not a "foreign organism" nor "causing disease". Barring the extreme there are great benefits to the mother's long term health from child bearing due to the hormonal changes that occur which greatly reduce such things and many forms of cancer.

[Ninjacorpse]

Well hells bells lets just sew there legs together, dont want them to catch a parasite.

[jwil59]

I'm pro life which surprises some I guess but to me, you have choice of YOUR life and if you succeed then you get rewarded and if you fail then you suffer the consequences, the woman's choice was when she engaged in sex, she gets pregnant, that's part of the consequences and to some of us,it's a blessed reward and to some it's a consequence of bad decisions and poor planning, now, another life is involved,you don't get to choose to end another life,imho. Now, when does life begin,some say at conception,some doesn't think life begins until the sound of the baby crying is heard, how do we compromise between such a wide range of opinion on a national level? I think the closest compromise would be at the State level and hopefully most would at the very least outlaw late term abortions because once the nervous system is formed and the heart is beating, I don't see how people can deny that's life.


I don't see how a pro-lifer can be for the states deciding cause it would certainly be state that would want to legalize unfettered abortion. I do undertsnad what you are saying about compromise though

[CaptainCrunch]

A father should have the right to say what a pregnant woman does to his baby.

That's first and foremost.

Secondly a doctor takes an oath to do no harm..

Third - A woman only has the right to do with her body as she chooses, that right ends the day she becomes pregnant, she is then responsible for another body, her baby's

So you see there's just no argument to be had for abortion.

Now I'm not advocating that women who have abortions be burned at the stake, but it would be equivalent.

[johnrocks]

I don't see how a pro-lifer can be for the states deciding cause it would certainly be state that would want to legalize unfettered abortion. I do undertsnad what you are saying about compromise though

I see your point but if it was a State issue, at least some would be saved hopefully, beats what is happening now,just my modest opinion,hope all is well jwil.

[B' en Natuf]

Your kids live off you till their 18. I have 6 and three are under 18... can I rid myself of these parasites?

[bella-day]

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.
2)oh I understand it. It just goes agaisnt conservative ideals. It's no different than liberals banning smoking or transfats.
3)because it's my personal opinion that a fetus is a parasite. You do realize they're good,bad,and nuetral parasites in the world?
Oh wait science is ew!!!


It should be left to the voters of the individual states to decide the legality of abortion within the boundaries of that state.

This never should have become a federal issue.

Statement #3 here is exceptionally narrow minded and does appear that it is posted to inflame others.

What's up with that?

[Ninjacorpse]

Your kids live off you till their 18. I have 6 and three are under 18... can I rid myself of these parasites?

No, once you have stk's you are stuck with them, the worst part is they have there own outbreaks each one worse than the last and before you know it you have stk's everywhere.

[B' en Natuf]

Children=transfats

OK

[jwil59]

I see your point but if it was a State issue, at least some would be saved hopefully, beats what is happening now,just my modest opinion,hope all is well jwil.

I'm always good with any compromise that would save some babies but my methods and other pro-lifers methods are usually different. I'm thinking many of them would oppose that in the case of abortion.

We are good buddy, hope you and yours are well

[Mobulis]

A father should have the right to say what a pregnant woman does to his baby.

That's first and foremost.

Secondly a doctor takes an oath to do no harm..

Third - A woman only has the right to do with her body as she chooses, that right ends the day she becomes pregnant, she is then responsible for another body, her baby's

So you see there's just no argument to be had for abortion.

Now I'm not advocating that women who have abortions be burned at the stake, but it would be equivalent.

By your way of thinking when a woman becomes pregnant she becomes a slave to the fetus.

[Frau Blucher]

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.
2)oh I understand it. It just goes agaisnt conservative ideals. It's no different than liberals banning smoking or transfats.
3)because it's my personal opinion that a fetus is a parasite. You do realize they're good,bad,and nuetral parasites in the world?
Oh wait science is ew!!!


1a. Being conservative does not mean anti government.

2a. Obviously you don't understand most conservative ideals then.

3a. I feel sorry for you that you feel a fetus is a parasite.

b. You really shouldn't assume anything. Science is not "ew" .. Not all people that are against abortion are the "religious zealots" that the other side tries to make them out to be!

c. I never said I was a pro lifer...I am not, I happen to be pro choice. I am also against late term abortions "on demand". In the third trimester, there is nothing that could cause a pregnant woman harm that an abortion can fix where a premature birth couldn't do the same. If it really is just a health issue then I would think most mothers would prefer giving a preemie a fighting chance instead of just ending its life.

d. But just because I think one way doesn't mean I can't understand how or why the other side feels the way they do, or that I feel the need to talk down to, or try to belittle someone that doesn't share my beliefs.

[darknessesedge]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

fetus /parasite?
man we need vouchers for the education in this country.

[Frau Blucher]

Deflection. Try answering the op. Why are direct answers so hard for people to give?
It's like pulling teeth. Seems like it's all deflect this, character attack that, and let's ignore an actual nice debate.
Divide divide divide


So I guess the "science is ew" that you directed at me fits into this same little box too, huh??

[Toll Collector]

a fetus is a baby, a parasite is a liberal on welfare

A few definitions of parasite. The first definition really does not apply.

Parasite: 2. A person who lives at the expense of another or others without making any usefull contribution or return

3. A plant or Animal that lives on or in an organism of another species from which it derives sustenance or protection without benefit to, and usually harmful effects on, the host

I don't think either define a fetus. So you appear to be correct.

[Toll Collector]

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.
2)oh I understand it. It just goes agaisnt conservative ideals. It's no different than liberals banning smoking or transfats.
3)because it's my personal opinion that a fetus is a parasite. You do realize they're good,bad,and nuetral parasites in the world?
Oh wait science is ew!!!

I am pro-choice. But it is really quite simple to understand. Pro lifers believe it is murder. They simply want the law enforced. Libs are banning legal substances like smoking and trans fats. Really a horrible comparison.

[jwil59]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

That's a tough question and there probably isn't a good enough answer for you but I'll try.

The things you listed that mother might engage in do not every time kill the baby. Can we really charge someone for doing something that "might be a crime". If I am not mistaken I have seen cases where drug crazed mothers have been charged for damage done to their unborn kids but I don't have any link or anyhting for that. Abortion on the other hand kills the baby every time if done properly. I hate to say properly because I don't think any abortion is proper but I don't have a better word.

[Mobulis]

A few definitions.

Parasite: A person who lives at the expense of another or others without making any usefull contribution or return

A plant or Animal that lives on or in an organism of another species from which it derives sustenance or protection without benefit to, and usually harmful effects on, the host

I don't think either define a fetus. So you appear to be correct.

Spot on.

[ltravisjr]

Zygote=embryo=fetus=baby as far as their possession of humanity and the value it entails. That's the answer to the question of "when you became you". Pro-choicers, if you refuse to accept that, fine, as its been argued over and over. However, you will do yourself a service and spare unnecessary threads like this if you just acknowledge this is what pro-lifers believe, the answers to all the side questions fall right into line. Applied to this thread, the pregnant woman is raising her child and we see her actions the same way we would see them if the child were born and the consequences of her actions on her child are equally important before the birth as after.

On a side note, does anyone notice how we are seeing so much more discussion regarding abortion these days? I think that's a good sign. A really good sign.

[ltravisjr]

Spot on.

I'd just ignore this parasite stuff and not engage on it. Our own arguments are strong enough we don't have to address it. Its not productive to the conversation and when left alone says plenty enough about the person who baits with it.

[Toll Collector]

Zygote=embryo=fetus=baby as far as their possession of humanity and the value it entails. That's the answer to the question of "when you became you". Pro-choicers, if you refuse to accept that, fine, as its been argued over and over. However, you will do yourself a service and spare unnecessary threads like this if you just acknowledge this is what pro-lifers believe, the answers to all the side questions fall right into line. Applied to this thread, the pregnant woman is raising her child and we see her actions the same way we would see them if the child were born and the consequences of her actions on her child are equally important before the birth as after.


I don't refuse to accept it, I agree. But I think the arguement is to simply protect the mothers rights. It's one or the other, it cannot be both.

[ltravisjr]

I don't refuse to accept it, I agree. But I think the arguement is to simply protect the mothers rights. It's one or the other, it cannot be both.

Yes, the mother's rights, but vis-a-vis the child's right to life as well - rights as valid as if the child were already born.

[grapabeaux]

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite (http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html)



a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta....

[Plasmaball]

I'm pro life which surprises some I guess but to me, you have choice of YOUR life and if you succeed then you get rewarded and if you fail then you suffer the consequences, the woman's choice was when she engaged in sex, she gets pregnant, that's part of the consequences and to some of us,it's a blessed reward and to some it's a consequence of bad decisions and poor planning, now, another life is involved,you don't get to choose to end another life,imho. Now, when does life begin,some say at conception,some doesn't think life begins until the sound of the baby crying is heard, how do we compromise between such a wide range of opinion on a national level? I think the closest compromise would be at the State level and hopefully most would at the very least outlaw late term abortions because once the nervous system is formed and the heart is beating, I don't see how people can deny that's life.

Ok john. You feel this way, so would be for making smoking,drinking illegal,and have monitoring stations for all pregnaut women. Why stop at just abortion?
A woman could drink the baby under, maybe overdose on pills, stress herself into a misscarraige.

If I was prolife I would be balls to the wall commited to the cause. So far seems like people are not that serious.

[Plasmaball]

try joining my IPhone DevTeam

pm me

[Hadassah]

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.
2)oh I understand it. It just goes agaisnt conservative ideals. It's no different than liberals banning smoking or transfats.
3)because it's my personal opinion that a fetus is a parasite. You do realize they're good,bad,and nuetral parasites in the world?
Oh wait science is ew!!!

Science says nothing about the fetus being a parasite. Nice try. Thanks for playing.

[LiberalKybosh]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?


I don't have a problem with any woman wanting to have an abortion, what I do have a problem with is my tax dollars paying for it.

[Hadassah]

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite (http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html)


[/LIST]
1. a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.
2. a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source. b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.
3. a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite. b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.
4. a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.). b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta....





Why are you trying to confuse people with the facts? God knows, people don't want to listen to the truth; then they might have to actually not engage in emotional rhetoric, ********, and outright lies. :doh:

[Plasmaball]

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite (http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html)


[/LIST]

I can not highlight on this phone but u prove it for me. A parasite GENERALLY does harm the host. That does not mean all parasites are harmful. Take away the emotion of the term and you can see I am right.

[Frau Blucher]

Ok john. You feel this way, so would be for making smoking,drinking illegal,and have monitoring stations for all pregnaut women. Why stop at just abortion?
A woman could drink the baby under, maybe overdose on pills, stress herself into a misscarraige.

If I was prolife I would be balls to the wall commited to the cause. So far seems like people are not that serious.

So I guess pro choicers should be for the killing of their children until the child reaches the age of maturity?? Why stop with just prenatal abortion...

It's your child, so you should be able to do with it what ever you see fit, right??

[Plasmaball]

I'd just ignore this parasite stuff and not engage on it. Our own arguments are strong enough we don't have to address it. Its not productive to the conversation and when left alone says plenty enough about the person who baits with it.

Bait my ass. It's my personal opinion. It is no different than people claiming Obama is a filthy Marxist pig!try answering the op if you feel you should ignore that term.

[Mobulis]

I'd just ignore this parasite stuff and not engage on it. Our own arguments are strong enough we don't have to address it. Its not productive to the conversation and when left alone says plenty enough about the person who baits with it.


True.

[Mobulis]

So I guess pro choicers should be for the killing of their children until the child reaches the age of maturity?? Why stop with just prenatal abortion...

It's your child, so you should be able to do with it what ever you see fit, right??

As long as the kids still in the womb yep.

[Mojotiger]

As long as the kids still in the womb yep.

Oh, so you're not really pro-choice then.

[rckirby]

It should be left to the voters of the individual states to decide the legality of abortion within the boundaries of that state.

This never should have become a federal issue.

Statement #3 here is exceptionally narrow minded and does appear that it is posted to inflame others.

What's up with that?

I agree with you and JohnRocks. Leave it to the states.

I also understand PB's question to a point.

My belief is this: I believe in self-responsibility. Whether you believe in a God or not, there are consequences to every action one takes.

I don't normally get involved in the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, because I know that abortions have been done for eons and will continue no matter what.

1. We don't have to make them a "drive-thru" procedure with the Feds stamp of approval.
2. If you believe in a higher power, it will be addressed at 'the gates'.

....and though PB's question can be considered legitimate generally, he didn't have to throw in the 'parasite' comment. That tells me he didn't want thoughtful discussion on what 'cons' think....he wanted to **** them off.

[Frau Blucher]

Oh, so you're not really pro-choice then.

Not according to the OP anyway...it's either all or nothing!!!

[Plasmaball]

So I guess pro choicers should be for the killing of their children until the child reaches the age of maturity?? Why stop with just prenatal abortion...

It's your child, so you should be able to do with it what ever you see fit, right??

A fetus does not have rights.we are already having people ban smoking in your car for the sake of the kids.
I assume you are for the monitoring of pregnaut women? Using your logic you would stop and support these laws. Therefore the fetus does not belong to the mother.

This is amusing.

[BOOOOOOSHHHH]

I agree with you and JohnRocks. Leave it to the states.

I also understand PB's question to a point.

My belief is this: I believe in self-responsibility. Whether you believe in a God or not, there are consequences to every action one takes.

I don't normally get involved in the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, because I know that abortions have been done for eons and will continue no matter what.

1. We don't have to make them a "drive-thru" procedure with the Feds stamp of approval.
2. If you believe in a higher power, it will be addressed at 'the gates'.

....and though PB's question can be considered legitimate generally, he didn't have to throw in the 'parasite' comment. That tells me he didn't want thoughtful discussion on what 'cons' think....he wanted to **** them off.

It will be addressed at the gates regardless of religious beliefs. All of us have to answer to God.

[Hadassah]

A fetus does not have rights.we are already having people ban smoking in your car for the sake of the kids.
I assume you are for the monitoring of pregnaut women? Using your logic you would stop and support these laws. Therefore the fetus does not belong to the mother.

This is amusing.

It is amusing that you're throwing out ******** to deflect from the reality of abortion.

[jwil59]

That's a tough question and there probably isn't a good enough answer for you but I'll try.

The things you listed that mother might engage in do not every time kill the baby. Can we really charge someone for doing something that "might be a crime". If I am not mistaken I have seen cases where drug crazed mothers have been charged for damage done to their unborn kids but I don't have any link or anyhting for that. Abortion on the other hand kills the baby every time if done properly. I hate to say properly because I don't think any abortion is proper but I don't have a better word.


Bump

[jwil59]

I agree with you and JohnRocks. Leave it to the states.

I also understand PB's question to a point.

My belief is this: I believe in self-responsibility. Whether you believe in a God or not, there are consequences to every action one takes.

I don't normally get involved in the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, because I know that abortions have been done for eons and will continue no matter what.

1. We don't have to make them a "drive-thru" procedure with the Feds stamp of approval.
2. If you believe in a higher power, it will be addressed at 'the gates'.

....and though PB's question can be considered legitimate generally, he didn't have to throw in the 'parasite' comment. That tells me he didn't want thoughtful discussion on what 'cons' think....he wanted to **** them off.


Good post mam

[Reagan's Hawk]

"Its aleady anti-conservative to be prolife". ??? Please elaborate. Please tell me how a Right-Wing Conservative Hawkish Veteran is anti-conservative because I'm pro-life. Lets go, bring the kool-aid!

[jwil59]

"Its aleady anti-conservative to be prolife". ??? Please elaborate. Please tell me how a Right-Wing Conservative Hawkish Veteran is anti-conservative because I'm pro-life. Lets go, bring the kool-aid!

Welcome to the forum and thank for for serving our great nation

[Guvnah]

It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.



"Conservative" isn't a principle. (To me.) Conservative is just a general collection of various principles that most conservatives share, and thereby those people are called "conservative."

If being pro-life is allegedly outside the common collection of the "conservative" package, then so be it. Being pro-life is more important to me than being "conservative."

I don't let myself get led by some label. I follow my principles. I don't care what someone might want to say about that. I have to be true to myself.

I consider the "pro-life is not 'conservative' " argument to be worthless.


Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.


I'll ignore the rest of your questions because I consider the "parasite" argument to be insincere.

[Guvnah]

Socrates I will ask u to retract or I will report u.

I hope you do.

I agree with his statement.

Report me too.

[Reagan's Hawk]

Thanks man...............and I will pray. God Bless.

[Guvnah]

1)because in my opinion banning abortion and taking away choice is progovernment.


I'm also pro-government in removing the choice to rape, rob, assault.

I guess I'm a liberal at heart.

Go figure.

[jwil59]

"Conservative" isn't a principle. (To me.) Conservative is just a general collection of various principles that most conservatives share, and thereby those people are called "conservative."

If being pro-life is allegedly outside the common collection of the "conservative" package, then so be it. Being pro-life is more important to me than being "conservative."

I don't let myself get led by some label. I follow my principles. I don't care what someone might want to say about that. I have to be true to myself.

I consider the "pro-life is not 'conservative' " argument to be worthless.



I'll ignore the rest of your questions because I consider the "parasite" argument to be insincere.

Well said buddy

[Guvnah]

You don't see me bitching over prolifers saying it's murder do u?
...

Seems to me that's precisely what this thread of yours is about.

[Frau Blucher]

A fetus does not have rights.we are already having people ban smoking in your car for the sake of the kids.
I assume you are for the monitoring of pregnaut women? Using your logic you would stop and support these laws. Therefore the fetus does not belong to the mother.

This is amusing.

No, what is amusing is how you are trying to paint every pro lifer as wanting to totally control the pregnant womans every move.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that for them its about the sanctity of life, not control.:wall:

[Reagan's Hawk]

Seems to me that's precisely what this thread of yours is about.

lol yep

[JenyEliza]

My question is if one cares so much about the fetus/parasite should they not make laws about this too?
Why not take total control.
Socrates I will ask u to retract or I will report u.

What are you asking Socrates to retract?

The human fetus is not a parasite, so the entire premise of this thread is stupid.

[Guvnah]

It should be left to the voters of the individual states to decide the legality of abortion within the boundaries of that state.

This never should have become a federal issue.

...

We tried that with slavery. How did that work out for us?

If it is wrong, it should be wrong everywhere in this country.

Having said that, I would support a state's-rights initiative AS AN INCREMENTAL STEP towards a full ban on abortion on demand. And that's precisely what an overturn of Roe.vs.Wade would do. (In fact, that's all it would do.)

[Reagan's Hawk]

off topic. But how do u upload a pic? Where do I start? Thank You.

[Guvnah]

By your way of thinking when a woman becomes pregnant she becomes a slave to the fetus.

Oh well. Take it up with Mother Nature. That how our species has evolved. Too bad you weren't born to a species that just lays eggs or something, I guess... But you're stuck with being a human. Them's the breaks.

[Reagan's Hawk]

Oh well. Take it up with Mother Nature. That how our species has evolved. Too bad you weren't born to a species that just lays eggs or something, I guess... But you're stuck with being a human. Them's the breaks.

Well, its probably part of the new funding in the wasteful stimulis package. Next to researching mice. hah

[Toll Collector]

Bait my ass. It's my personal opinion. It is no different than people claiming Obama is a filthy Marxist pig!try answering the op if you feel you should ignore that term.

What is your personal opinion? That a fetus is a parasite? That is not an opinion. It is not up for debate to warrent an opinion. By definition it is not a parasite. No opinion needed.

It would be like me saying, it is my personal opinion the sun is only 10 million miles from earth, not 93.

People calling Obama a marxist is opinion. Just like calling Bush a war criminal. People have their opinions based on events that cannot be agreed upon.

[JenyEliza]

Bait my ass. It's my personal opinion. It is no different than people claiming Obama is a filthy Marxist pig!try answering the op if you feel you should ignore that term.

One would think you'd drop this "parasite" business when posting here after having your ass handed to you by me (and the Moderators) for calling human fetuses "parasites".

Since you persist in using this term with regard to human fetuses, exactly when do you believe YOU ceased to be a "parasite"?

[Hadassah]

Oh well. Take it up with Mother Nature. That how our species has evolved. Too bad you weren't born to a species that just lays eggs or something, I guess... But you're stuck with being a human. Them's the breaks.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

[jwil59]

Oh well. Take it up with Mother Nature. That how our species has evolved. Too bad you weren't born to a species that just lays eggs or something, I guess... But you're stuck with being a human. Them's the breaks.

That's gonna leave a mark

[Guvnah]

we are already having people ban smoking in your car for the sake of the kids.
I assume you are for the monitoring of pregnaut women? ...

Who is monitoring parents who smoke in the car?

Seriously.

You keep "assuming" that people want monitoring of pregnant women, yet not a single person (other than you) has suggested it.

Maybe your assumptions are the problem here.

[Frau Blucher]

One would think you'd drop this "parasite" business when posting here after having your ass handed to you by me (and the Moderators) for calling human fetuses "parasites".

Since you persist in using this term with regard to human fetuses, exactly when do you believe YOU ceased to be a "parasite"?


GREAT QUESTION!!!!!:clap:

[Plasmaball]

I "threw" it in there because it's my personal belief.
If you become inflamed over my opinion that's not my fault.
I find murder to be just as an extreme word. How about we stop using that?
Can't do that because people feel they are right and justify it.
Yet I am baiting and inflamming. LOL right


I agree with you and JohnRocks. Leave it to the states.

I also understand PB's question to a point.

My belief is this: I believe in self-responsibility. Whether you believe in a God or not, there are consequences to every action one takes.

I don't normally get involved in the pro-life vs pro-choice debate, because I know that abortions have been done for eons and will continue no matter what.

1. We don't have to make them a "drive-thru" procedure with the Feds stamp of approval.
2. If you believe in a higher power, it will be addressed at 'the gates'.

....and though PB's question can be considered legitimate generally, he didn't have to throw in the 'parasite' comment. That tells me he didn't want thoughtful discussion on what 'cons' think....he wanted to **** them off.

[Hadassah]

What is your personal opinion? That a fetus is a parasite? That is not an opinion. It is not up for debate to warrent an opinion. By definition it is not a parasite. No opinion needed.

It would be like me saying, it is my personal opinion the sun is only 10 million miles from earth, not 93.

People calling Obama a marxist is opinion. Just like calling Bush a war criminal. People have their opinions based on events that cannot be agreed upon.


Just thought I'd emphasize TollCollector's statement. :mrgreen:

[Mobulis]

No, what is amusing is how you are trying to paint every pro lifer as wanting to totally control the pregnant womans every move.

Why is it so hard for you to understand that for them its about the sanctity of life, not control.:wall:


If it was only about the sanctity of life then you would be for never allowing abortions EVER.

[Plasmaball]

One would think you'd drop this "parasite" business when posting here after having your ass handed to you by me (and the Moderators) for calling human fetuses "parasites".

Since you persist in using this term with regard to human fetuses, exactly when do you believe YOU ceased to be a "parasite"?

Ass handed LOL. No I just didn't see that angle and manned up.
Well in the terms of this topic? Once the fetus/parasite is born. We could go deeper into social and philosophical issues of the human race, but I don't want to loose people

[Ingator]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?

All that has been done here is to accuse the right of what the left ACTUALLY is guilty of.
nice try though.


And go get a blackberry.

[Frau Blucher]

If it was only about the sanctity of life then you would be for never allowing abortions EVER.


I assume you mean 'you' in general , not me personally. I am pro choice. I also believe no one should be ridiculed or belittled for their beliefs whether you agree with them or not.


And a whole heck of a lot of pro lifers are against ANY abortion...

[JenyEliza]

Ass handed LOL. No I just didn't see that angle and manned up.
Well in the terms of this topic? Once the fetus/parasite is born. We could go deeper into social and philosophical issues of the human race, but I don't want to loose people

Oh yeah, right. :))

Don't want to lose people. :)) :doh: :))

If you were serious about that, you wouldn't be using the term "parasite" in reference to human fetuses. *That* is where you *actually* lose people.

Calling human fetuses "parasites" does NOTHING to advance your position. NOTHING. In fact, it really puts people off. It's a wholly unpersuasive argument, and in fact, very offensive. Point in fact: You were so offended by me referring to you as a fully-grown parasite, you opened a Mod complaint about me.

But....go right ahead and keep using the term. You'll continue to get the same result.

[Guvnah]

... but I don't want to loose people

I don't know about having your "ass handed to you", but you've lost most of the participants here on the real question you were trying to ask. The thread has been derailed on the term "parasite" instead of achieving your intended purpose.

A wise man would notice that and change the focus of the thread if he really wanted the actual question answered. You continue to insist on defending the term "parasite", so now this thread has spun to discussing that term. (Unless that was really your intention from the start, in which case you are getting what you wanted.)

Just saying...

[Plasmaball]

I don't know about having your "ass handed to you", but you've lost most of the participants here on the real question you were trying to ask. The thread has been derailed on the term "parasite" instead of achieving your intended purpose.

A wise man would notice that and change the focus of the thread if he really wanted the actual question answered. You continue to insist on defending the term "parasite", so now this thread has spun to discussing that term. (Unless that was really your intention from the start, in which case you are getting what you wanted.)

Just saying...
Oh I have noted on this, so has my girl who is reading the thread.
Going after that one word is a copoit into no answering the op.you are doing it yourself. Instead of pointing this out you could answer the op.

Make it about something else so the main point gets lost.

[WildRose]

Deflection. Try answering the op. Why are direct answers so hard for people to give?
It's like pulling teeth. Seems like it's all deflect this, character attack that, and let's ignore an actual nice debate.
Divide divide divideA fetus is not a parasite by any medical or scientific definition so the OP begins this thread with a false premise and false statement. That being the case we have the toilet calling the pot a kettle.

[superjames1992]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs
Should we also give people the right to murder? I mean, after all, laws prohibiting murder limit our freedoms and restrict our individual rights. It must be anti-conservative! :wall:

[WildRose]

I would suggest you research parasites, they're quite a few that act in concert with the host.remove the protective lining surrounding the fetus/parasite and what happens? The mothers body will kill it and remove it. Making it a foregein organism.Wrong, you are trying to BS a biologist with a specialty in parasitology.

No parasite carries the DNA of the hose as part of it's own genetic makeup. If you wish to label a fetus, it is a commensual organism because both host and resident benefit from the relationship. Even that would be incorrect though because a fetus is not a foreign organism which would be the first requirement. The only way the mother's body would attack the fetus is if it wasn't in the womb. Even then, such as is the case with an ectopic pregnancy normally that doesn't even happen although there can be grave consequences for both mother and child.

[WildRose]

I don't see how a pro-lifer can be for the states deciding cause it would certainly be state that would want to legalize unfettered abortion. I do undertsnad what you are saying about compromise thoughJW most pro lifers are either conservative or libertarian or both. That being the case the vast majority actually support following The Constitution and BOR. That being the case they/we would gladly welcome the question of abortion being left to the states where it constitutionally belongs.

[Plasmaball]

Oh yeah, right. :))

Don't want to lose people. :)) :doh: :))

If you were serious about that, you wouldn't be using the term "parasite" in reference to human fetuses. *That* is where you *actually* lose people.

Calling human fetuses "parasites" does NOTHING to advance your position. NOTHING. In fact, it really puts people off. It's a wholly unpersuasive argument, and in fact, very offensive. Point in fact: You were so offended by me referring to you as a fully-grown parasite, you opened a Mod complaint about me.

But....go right ahead and keep using the term. You'll continue to get the same result.

Answer the op.
floating says next time I won't say I am sorry. I was being adult about that situation, and it seems I wasted my time.
I don't care if people become offended by the term. People get offended all the time here.
Lose people in the sense of moving away from my op.

So again feel free to answer the op.
Otherwise I am going to ignore you

[rckirby]

I "threw" it in there because it's my personal belief.
If you become inflamed over my opinion that's not my fault.
I find murder to be just as an extreme word. How about we stop using that?
Can't do that because people feel they are right and justify it.
Yet I am baiting and inflamming. LOL right

So, I tried to answer your OP from a conservative point of view, but you get hung up on what?

I didn't get inflamed......I didn't call it "murder".

I will say it one last time....the FED has no say so. The State's, via their voters do. That is my belief as a Conservative (small government)

You argue, but if truth be told, you would embrace an honest Conservative view.....

[Plasmaball]

Should we also give people the right to murder? I mean, after all, laws prohibiting murder limit our freedoms and restrict our individual rights. It must be anti-conservative! :wall:
We do it's called war.

[WildRose]

By your way of thinking when a woman becomes pregnant she becomes a slave to the fetus.Only in America is personal responsibility equated to slavery... . sheesh.

Is a woman a "slave" to her children once they are born? Afterall the law requires that if they are born alive she's "responsible" for them....

What a stupid analogy.

[WildRose]

We do it's called war.Please send me your mailing address so I can send you a dictionary. Obviously you haven't even a basic grasp of the English language and I'd really like to help you out with that.

Murder=the intentional, unlawful taking of a human life. While it is possible to commit an act of murder during a war by violating the UCMJ, Standing Orders, and Direct orders of superiors, killing the enemy lawfully is not murder.

[crux]

We do it's called war.

War is murder and a fetus is a parasite.

I can't wait for the next gem of wisdom

[Liability]

Dopiest thread and dopiest o.p. in recent memory.

(BTW: O.P. refers to the original poster, not the guest who offers the original post.)


The author of the dopey O.P. actually attempted to "clarify" his intent by later offering this gem: "the fetus/parasite."

Since it impossible to "reason" with a mind so firmly welded shut, this thread has essentially zero value.

[daisymay]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?
I much preferred holding my daughter in my arms after she was born and had quit being a such a parasite in my body! Man, I know some women turn into fatsos when they're pregnant, but I couldn't gain anything, she sucked all my calories and took all the iron from my blood.

[Liability]

War is murder and a fetus is a parasite.

I can't wait for the next gem of wisdom

Plasmablah is a lib.

It is an established fact that to libs words have no fixed meaning.

This thread is mind-numbingly dopey.

[rckirby]

Plasmablah is a lib.

It is an established fact that to libs words have no fixed meaning.

This thread is mind-numbingly dopey.

You do love to kill threads don't you?

I agree, it gets frustrating trying to hit a moving target.

[WildRose]

I can not highlight on this phone but u prove it for me. A parasite GENERALLY does harm the host. That does not mean all parasites are harmful. Take away the emotion of the term and you can see I am right.In order to classify as a parasite the resident must be of a different species than it's host.

Fail.

In order to classify as a parasite, the resident must take from the host and give nothing of benefit in return.

Fail.

In order to be classified as a parasite the resident must not be a natural part of the host.

Fail.

Just because you call a cat a hamster doesn't make it one. A cat is still a cat, a hamster is still a hamster, and an unborn or preborn human fetus is not a parasite.

[Plasmaball]

Please send me your mailing address so I can send you a dictionary. Obviously you haven't even a basic grasp of the English language and I'd really like to help you out with that.

Murder=the intentional, unlawful taking of a human life. While it is possible to commit an act of murder during a war by violating the UCMJ, Standing Orders, and Direct orders of superiors, killing the enemy lawfully is not murder.

I love it when someone who says abort is murder because u are ending a life. Who says it's a fact you can't deny, but take a life in war and it's not legal murder.
I love the hypocrisy of this species.

[crux]

I love it when someone who says abort is murder because u are ending a life. Who says it's a fact you can't deny, but take a life in war and it's not legal murder.
I love the hypocrisy of this species.
Words have meanings.

A fetus is not a parasite

War is not murder

[WildRose]

I love it when someone who says abort is murder because u are ending a life. Who says it's a fact you can't deny, but take a life in war and it's not legal murder.
I love the hypocrisy of this species.I'll donate $5,000.00 cash to the abortion clinic of your choice if you can find even one instance of me saying/writing that abortion is murder.

To borrow an old phrase or two, "The ball is in your court"; "put up or shut up".

I'm sorry if the proper definition of Murder though just destroys your whole view of the world.

Again, just let me know where and I will personally send you a dictionary to help you out since your grasp of the English Language doesn't even equate to an 8th grade level. It pains me to see someone so vocal make such a fool of themselves repeatedly because they can't understand the meaning of even the simplest words they employ.

[Reagan's Hawk]

I love it when someone who says abort is murder because u are ending a life. Who says it's a fact you can't deny, but take a life in war and it's not legal murder.
I love the hypocrisy of this species.

Killing the innocent is murder. Killing the enemy in battle is not murder. There is a difference between both of them. Same as the death penalty. The guilty are punished.

Easy concept. Most citizens learn the concept in grade school. But I guess its never to late for you to back to the 3rd grade.

[ltravisjr]

Ok john. You feel this way, so would be for making smoking,drinking illegal,and have monitoring stations for all pregnaut women. Why stop at just abortion?
A woman could drink the baby under, maybe overdose on pills, stress herself into a misscarraige.

If I was prolife I would be balls to the wall commited to the cause. So far seems like people are not that serious.

I invite you to read my recent posts and follow my logic in all cases. If a pregnant woman of sound mind directly and intentionally kills the child within her, it is no different than killing an already born child and she should be dealt with as such. Again, she has to be fully aware she is killing her child and willingly taking steps to do it, as our laws apply in judging any crime. Can that be done with drinking and pills, etc.? I don't know but if it is possible, I remain consistent. The mom has just as much a responsibility to her unborn's well being as she does to an already born child. These. are. defenseless. innocent. children. Its that simple.

[ltravisjr]

Killing the innocent is murder. Killing the enemy in battle is not murder. There is a difference between both of them. Same as the death penalty. The guilty are punished.

Easy concept. Most citizens learn the concept in grade school. But I guess its never to late for you to back to the 3rd grade.

Yes, we are morally obligated to our own self defense, of which our nation is a party to. These are basic principles, folks.

[WildRose]

Because everyone sentenced to the death penalty was guilty, o wait...

Ignorance is bliss i suppose.Undoubtedly there have been people executed for crimes they did not commit. That is the flaw of a system that depends on humans to make it work.

It is however undeniable that every child who dies as the result of an abortion was innocent of any crime.

You would support one system that in every case kills an innocent yet wail and bemoan another system that might occasionally take the life of an innocent?

Talk about hypocrisy!

[dave rogers]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.
My question is how far do you push? It is already anti-conservative to be prolife.
All conservatives should have libertarian tendencies as a basic foundation to their beliefs.

Prolifers claim to care about the fetus/parasite.
I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

I know I know slippery slope right? Well that's the rights bread and butter.
So how serious are you about saving the fetus/parasite?
Prolifers call it murder to abort. Isn't it sage to conclude if a woman was going to abort then how can we trust her not to do these things?
Let's start with allowing the child to live. We all know that we don't choose our parents. If the child survives the car wreck of a mother then we give the helpless child every thing we can to not only survive but to thrive here in the greatest, most compassionate country in the world.

[dave rogers]

I am pro-life and don't support the death penalty, you appear to be the hypocrite.
A child could understand the idiocy of this statement. You must have attended a liberal, left wing, brainwashing institution to not believe any credible justice system MUST include the death penalty. Just as it needs to include mercy. Without the death penalty you cheapen every other sentence, punishment.

[WreckedParty]

One of the few things the fed is allowed to take responsibility for is protecting the lives of citizens, so i do not think that it is big government control to ban certain types of abortions.

[WreckedParty]

A child could understand the idiocy of this statement. You must have attended a liberal, left wing, brainwashing institution to not believe any credible justice system MUST include the death penalty. Just as it needs to include mercy. Without the death penalty you cheapen every other sentence, punishment.

This liberal indoctrination camp crap is really hilarious, enjoy your sour grapes.:boohoo:

[WildRose]

I am pro-life and don't support the death penalty, you appear to be the hypocrite.Nothing at all hypocritical about my position on either.

One causes the death of an innocent in every case.

The other MAY cause the death of an innocent in extremely rare circumstances and only when the justice system fails utterly. This is not murder, because by definition "Murder" is the unlawful taking of a human life. Thus, by definition, even if it is later proved that someone was indeed executed for a crime they did not commit, the execution was still "lawful" as long as the law was followed.

What is so difficult to understand here? One is a tragedy which has led to the deaths of millions of innocents, the other is a rare and tragic mistake when an entire system fails.

[Mobulis]

Only in America is personal responsibility equated to slavery... . sheesh.

Is a woman a "slave" to her children once they are born? Afterall the law requires that if they are born alive she's "responsible" for them....

What a stupid analogy.

Once a child is born the woman may give the child up and be free of any responsibility, but while its in the womb if the woman has it removed it dies. Thus your saying that the woman MUST keep it in there.

[WildRose]

Sorry, there is a reason over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, it isn't effective. Im sure all those evil left wingers at Texas A&M would agree with you though.The depends entirely on how you measure "effective". Deterrance is certainly one way, yet it's very difficult to measure. How can you prove how many murders were not comitted because people fear the death penalty? One way to prove the opposite is to look at states where the death penalty is not used and compare the rate of first degree murder, to those states rates where the death penalty is used and enforced. In every case the rates are lower where the DP is used and enforced vs. states where it is not.

Another measure of effectiveness is recidivism. No one executed for a capital crime has ever committed another capital crime thus the recidivism rate is 0.

Prevention is another means of measuring effectiveness. Since no one has ever committed another capital crime after being executed for one it's inarguable that it prevents further capital crimes being committed.

You can argue and debate the topic from many angles but you can't make a blanket statement that the DP isn't "effective" with any intellectual honesty.

[WildRose]

Extremely Rare circumstances?

http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm

"In January 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty in Illinois. In reviewing death penalty cases since 1977, he determined that 13 death row inmates in the state had been cleared of murder charges, compared to 12 who had been put to death. Some of the 13 inmates were taken off death row after DNA evidence exonerated them; the cases of others collapsed after new trials were ordered by appellate courts. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied", Ryan said. Ironically, the Republican Governor had campaigned in support of the death penalty. Ultimately in January 2003, Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences to prison terms of life or less

Most death penalty critics have an ethical basis for their opposition. They argue that a government's act to execute is a violation of human rights, especially if there remains a possibility that the individual is innocent. The development of DNA testing has exonerated a number of convicted criminals, include some on death row. They also charge that the penalty is particularly barbaric when applied to mentally retarded persons and juveniles.
Death penalty critics argue that the high reversal rate in death penalty cases illustrates the fallibility of the criminal justice process. A full 65% of convictions in capital cases are overturned according to one study. Yet there does not appear to be significant progress on many proposals for modifying criminal procedure in capital cases such assigning special judges and guaranteeing adequately trained counsel. Nor are there proposals which might impose a higher standard of proof in death cases for the purpose of reducing the risk of executing innocent persons.One relatively short period in the history of one state. We have fifty states, plus the federal government.

All this shows is how pathetic the states justice system in Illinois; which is no surprise since it's political system is also the most inept and corrupt in the nation.

Nothing has ever been shown anywhere supporting such an abominable rate of wrongful convictions in the other 51 jurisdictions.

So yes, that still meets the definition of "extremely rare".

[JenyEliza]

Sorry, there is a reason over half the countries in the world have abolished the death penalty, it isn't effective. Im sure all those evil left wingers at Texas A&M would agree with you though.

You obviously know little to nothing about TAMU. :doh: :)) :)) :))

College Station, TX is a huge bastion of conservatism. Home to George H.W. and Barbara Bush. Home to the Bush Presidential Library. Home to the Corp of Cadets. Fish Camp. Yell Practice. Reveille. The Aggies. Tradition.

Yeah....lots of "evil left wingers" there. Not. :)) :))

[WildRose]

Completely wrong.
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

Thanks for playing.No, not completely wrong. If you think throwing up numbers from an anti death penalty organization without sourcing their statistics has any weight in a debate you are nuts.

"Used and enforced" is the key here. Just because a state has a DP on the books does not mean it is "used and enforced". NY and IL are great examples!

Take a close look at the numbers for TX between the first and last years of the period. The murder rate is down in TX by over 60% since the DP statutes were changed such that executions were essentially "fast tracked" rather than having the average wait time cut from over 20 years to under seven.

Now, how about addressing the points I made without relying on such drivel.

[JenyEliza]

Are you familiar with sarcasm?

Uh....yeah. I just used it on you.

Obviously you're not. :doh: :)) :)) :))


ps. I'm an Aggie. Don't mess with Texas---or TAMU!!!!!

[WildRose]

This right after you made a blanket statement about states with/without the death penalty lacking a source.I wasn't crediting any source, which was better than the drivel you came up with.

Again though, comparing apples to apples where has the death penalty failed?

Are you simply going to continue ingoring the very valid points I made about how it's effectiveness absolutely can be shown?

[Quaere_Verum]

If a woman can have an abortion w/o killing the baby then fine. Until then there is no valid reason for an abortion. What about the health of the mother you say? Well her biological function in this world is to bear children, ergo, that takes precedence over 'health' issues. If she dies in child birth that is sad but at least she will have lived her life. Taking an unborn child's life to preserve the life of the mother is never justified.

[Old_Mil]

Now I am posting this on my iPhone so this is going to be a pain to ask.
Do be prolife one has to admit that you limit the mother in some fashion.
You don't want to give her the right to choose.

I am curious if you ban abortion, do you move on to ban pregnaut women from smoking,drinking,monitor what they eat.
All these things affect the fetus/parasites health. All can lead to severe issues.

Since you framed the question incorrectly, you draw the incorrect conclusion. Pro-life has nothing to do with denying the right of a woman "to choose." If a woman wants to be so irresponsible as to drink and smoke during pregnancy and negatively affect the health of her child, well, this is America.

However, even in a free country like America, murder (and yes, infanticide) is quite illegal. The difference between the pro-life movement and the pro-abortion movement is that the latter draws an artificial line at delivery + 00:00:01 and would seek to limit all legal protections a baby would receive to beyond this point.

Now see how foolish your point of view is?

[Mike Griffith]

How much "control" do we want? Well, we don't want nearly the control that you want over the lives of babies in the womb. You want to empower their mothers with the "right" to kill them merely for the sake of convenience. We, on the other hand, just want government to perform its lawful, moral, natural-right function of protecting the innocent from unjust, unnecessary death. We want government to protect innocent babies in the womb from unnecessary abortions.

Excuses like "A baby just doesn't fit into my life plans right now" and "I didn't expect to get pregnant" are not valid reasons to kill a baby. Rape, incest, and life of the mother are arguably valid reasons, but such cases account for less than 5% of all abortions.

[Liability]

The "pro-death abortion-on-demand-even-for-mere-convenience-because the-right-to-choose-is-vastly-superior (in every way) to the imaginary right to life of a pre-born human being" crowd only wants as much control over the pre-born as will permit them to snuff out that life. In other words, all they want is total control over human life. That's all.

[Hadassah]

Wrong, you are trying to BS a biologist with a specialty in parasitology.

No parasite carries the DNA of the hose as part of it's own genetic makeup. If you wish to label a fetus, it is a commensual organism because both host and resident benefit from the relationship. Even that would be incorrect though because a fetus is not a foreign organism which would be the first requirement. The only way the mother's body would attack the fetus is if it wasn't in the womb. Even then, such as is the case with an ectopic pregnancy normally that doesn't even happen although there can be grave consequences for both mother and child.


bump for the one who insists on calling the unborn child a parasite. here's more proof that the parasite claim is blatently false.

[Mohawk5]

You lost me when you called a fetus a parasite.

Nice shock affect.

[Guvnah]

Oh I have noted on this, so has my girl who is reading the thread.
Going after that one word is a copoit into no answering the op.you are doing it yourself. Instead of pointing this out you could answer the op.

Make it about something else so the main point gets lost.

If you want my participation, give me a reason.

No matter how right you might be (and I'm not saying you are) nobody wants to listen if you say it with a baseball bat.

Show you daughter an example of graciousness. Otherwise you'll just be showing her that you don't get flies with vnegar.

[super cool ski instructor]

Stopped reading when the OP referred to a fetus as a parasite......

[Guvnah]

I love it when someone who says abort is murder because u are ending a life. Who says it's a fact you can't deny, but take a life in war and it's not legal murder.
I love the hypocrisy of this species.

War as a matter of national self-defense is perfectly acceptable. War simply for the sake of killing someone is not. Ditto for abortion.

I'm not interested in discussing what you think "self defense" does (not) entail. You've demonstrated a complete lack of reasonable definitions already.

[Greyclouds]

Wrong, you are trying to BS a biologist with a specialty in parasitology.

No parasite carries the DNA of the hose as part of it's own genetic makeup. If you wish to label a fetus, it is a commensual organism because both host and resident benefit from the relationship. Even that would be incorrect though because a fetus is not a foreign organism which would be the first requirement. The only way the mother's body would attack the fetus is if it wasn't in the womb. Even then, such as is the case with an ectopic pregnancy normally that doesn't even happen although there can be grave consequences for both mother and child.


Ahem... transposable elements? Prophage?

Generalized transduction? Parasitic conjoined twins?

In rare cases, the mother's immune system does attack the fetus http://www.biology-online.org/articles/immune_system_research_holds.html. Biologically, this makes sense, as the fetus can project different antigens. Some recurrent miscarriages can be explained PARTIALLY through this mechanism.


I only have issue with the bolded sentence in your quote.

A fetus is not a parasite ONLY if you consider the fact that the mother's DNA is amplified by the production of the fetus. That is the only real biological benefit that the fetus provides for the nutrient exchange of the mother, but it is enough of an evolutionary significance to call the placental development cycle a general symbiotic association.

[JenyEliza]

Stopped reading when the OP referred to a fetus as a parasite......

Yeah, the OP claims they "don't want to lose people" in this discussion, yet uses that term in regards to a human fetus.

The OP does this specifically to be outrageous, antagonistic and to derail an honest discussion with those who don't share his views. To get a rise out of us....

[dave rogers]

Extremely Rare circumstances?

http://www.newsbatch.com/deathpenalty.htm

"In January 2000, Governor George Ryan of Illinois imposed a moratorium on the imposition of the death penalty in Illinois. In reviewing death penalty cases since 1977, he determined that 13 death row inmates in the state had been cleared of murder charges, compared to 12 who had been put to death. Some of the 13 inmates were taken off death row after DNA evidence exonerated them; the cases of others collapsed after new trials were ordered by appellate courts. "There is a flaw in the system, without question, and it needs to be studied", Ryan said. Ironically, the Republican Governor had campaigned in support of the death penalty. Ultimately in January 2003, Governor Ryan commuted all death sentences to prison terms of life or less

Most death penalty critics have an ethical basis for their opposition. They argue that a government's act to execute is a violation of human rights, especially if there remains a possibility that the individual is innocent. The development of DNA testing has exonerated a number of convicted criminals, include some on death row. They also charge that the penalty is particularly barbaric when applied to mentally retarded persons and juveniles.
Death penalty critics argue that the high reversal rate in death penalty cases illustrates the fallibility of the criminal justice process. A full 65% of convictions in capital cases are overturned according to one study. Yet there does not appear to be significant progress on many proposals for modifying criminal procedure in capital cases such assigning special judges and guaranteeing adequately trained counsel. Nor are there proposals which might impose a higher standard of proof in death cases for the purpose of reducing the risk of executing innocent persons.
Illinois has been one of the most politically corrupt states in the union for a long time. Citizens were disgusted with this decision of politicizing the justice system and robbing victims of their ability to have closure. Those criminals all ended up with life in prison instead of the death penalty. If they were so innocent why were'nt they released.

[dave rogers]

If a woman can have an abortion w/o killing the baby then fine. Until then there is no valid reason for an abortion. What about the health of the mother you say? Well her biological function in this world is to bear children, ergo, that takes precedence over 'health' issues. If she dies in child birth that is sad but at least she will have lived her life. Taking an unborn child's life to preserve the life of the mother is never justified.
Well said.

[Plasmaball]

Let's start with allowing the child to live. We all know that we don't choose our parents. If the child survives the car wreck of a mother then we give the helpless child every thing we can to not only survive but to thrive here in the greatest, most compassionate country in the world.

you still didnt answer the question oh how far YOU are willing to go, or how far YOU think the prolife movement should take it.

[Plasmaball]

War as a matter of national self-defense is perfectly acceptable. War simply for the sake of killing someone is not. Ditto for abortion.

I'm not interested in discussing what you think "self defense" does (not) entail. You've demonstrated a complete lack of reasonable definitions already.

War us not just a matter or self defense. That sounds like a Rome excuse.
War if fought for land, title, women, religion and a host of other reasons.
Some in my opinion not justified.
War is not acceptable. War is a desperation attempt when logic and reason no longer works.

[Plasmaball]

What is your personal opinion? That a fetus is a parasite? That is not an opinion. It is not up for debate to warrent an opinion. By definition it is not a parasite. No opinion needed.

It would be like me saying, it is my personal opinion the sun is only 10 million miles from earth, not 93.

People calling Obama a marxist is opinion. Just like calling Bush a war criminal. People have their opinions based on events that cannot be agreed upon.

Everything is a personal opinion when you break things down.
In my opinion a fetus is a parasite. You dont like my terms? Tuff. Plenty of things out there you are not going to agree with that is an opinion.

[Mobulis]

If a woman can have an abortion w/o killing the baby then fine. Until then there is no valid reason for an abortion. What about the health of the mother you say? Well her biological function in this world is to bear children, ergo, that takes precedence over 'health' issues. If she dies in child birth that is sad but at least she will have lived her life. Taking an unborn child's life to preserve the life of the mother is never justified.

If the woman CHOOSES to sacrifice her life for the fetus thats fine but you don't get to make that CHOICE for her.

[Frau Blucher]

If the woman CHOOSES to sacrifice her life for the fetus thats fine but you don't get to make that CHOICE for her.

I totally agree!!!!!

[AmericanFirst]

If the woman CHOOSES to sacrifice her life for the fetus thats fine but you don't get to make that CHOICE for her.

Don't make me PAY for her choice through tax dollars, regardless of what it is!

[rckirby]

Everything is a personal opinion when you break things down.
In my opinion a fetus is a parasite. You dont like my terms? Tuff. Plenty of things out there you are not going to agree with that is an opinion.

Opinions are free.....but who gets to pick up the tab when the government steps in?????

[Chuangtzu]

Judging from their platforms, their rhetoric, their stated goals: they want what they want, and what another chooses is no matter.

Which is nearly the opposite of their political opponents, who allow them their wants, seeking only to protect the right of choice itself.

[Hadassah]

Judging from their platforms, their rhetoric, their stated goals: they want what they want, and what another chooses is no matter.

Which is nearly the opposite of their political opponents, who allow them their wants, seeking only to protect the right of choice itself.

Well, Chuang, you know me. I don't want anything except absolute, complete, and total power. :whistle:

[jwil59]

Well, Chuang, you know me. I don't want anything except absolute, complete, and total power. :whistle:

You go girl :lol:

[jwil59]

JW most pro lifers are either conservative or libertarian or both. That being the case the vast majority actually support following The Constitution and BOR. That being the case they/we would gladly welcome the question of abortion being left to the states where it constitutionally belongs.

Then they are pro-life for their politics and not the babies. Now I am not critisizing anyone for that but we all know if abortion were strickly a states issue then there would be states that would allow unfettered abortion and I don't see how a person that is concerned about the babies could support that. It's like saying, "Hey it's ok to abort babies if a state says it's ok". Don't make sense to me. Like I said, I am not critisizing anyone, I just thought we were doing all this for the kids and not the Constitution or BOR

[tobybear]

So libs dont care when pregnant women smoke, drink, or do drugs since its just a parasite?

Will Libs support ending Federal funding for pregnant women that goes to helping their parasite grow big and strong inside of them?

[dave rogers]

you still didnt answer the question oh how far YOU are willing to go, or how far YOU think the prolife movement should take it.
If a mother knowingly does harm to her child iside or outside her womb she should face the criminal justice system. Any questions?

[Liability]

Then they are pro-life for their politics and not the babies. Now I am not critisizing anyone for that but we all know if abortion were strickly a states issue then there would be states that would allow unfettered abortion and I don't see how a person that is concerned about the babies could support that. It's like saying, "Hey it's ok to abort babies if a state says it's ok". Don't make sense to me. Like I said, I am not critisizing anyone, I just thought we were doing all this for the kids and not the Constitution or BOR


We sometimes agree. We sometimes do not agree.

On that point, I agree with you.

I have several buddies here and on a couple of other Boards who are committed to the notion that 'abortion' is (and ought to be) a matter for State Law, not Federal Law.

I have never bought that argument. Some of these guys and gals have been persuasive on other issues, so I don't like to just blithely assume that they are wrong. But, like you, I guess I'm just missing the point here or something.

If we ARE discussing the issue of LIFE, then it either IS a human life at some point before birth or it isn't.

If it is not a human life at some point before birth, then it matters not at all EXCEPT that it interferes with the right of a woman to control her own body. If it is NOT a human life, then I would be pro-abortion rights.

But if it IS a human life at some point before birth, then it matters a great deal and is vastly more significant and important that a woman's comparatively minor right to "choose." (Compared only to the value we place on human life, that is.)

If it is a life, then it DOES have by God RIGHTS! It's right to life is not a State issue. It is a guaranteed U.S. Constitutional rights issue.

So there we have it. Another layer of confusion and a deeper level of problem for this entire debate.

I welcome the input of any conservative who can explain to me (I am a slow student on this one) how and why the pre-born child's right to LIFE is a State's right issue and not a U.S. Constitutional guaranteed right issue.

[Plasmaball]

That's a tough question and there probably isn't a good enough answer for you but I'll try.

The things you listed that mother might engage in do not every time kill the baby. Can we really charge someone for doing something that "might be a crime". If I am not mistaken I have seen cases where drug crazed mothers have been charged for damage done to their unborn kids but I don't have any link or anyhting for that. Abortion on the other hand kills the baby every time if done properly. I hate to say properly because I don't think any abortion is proper but I don't have a better word.

Hey man at least you tried to answer the Op unlike others.
Plenty of methods to kill a fetus/parasite without having to resort to an abortion.
Drinks lots of caffenine, being punched, over working yourself, To much direct Vitiiman C, Body could just reject it, some foods are said to make you misscarry.

[jwil59]

We sometimes agree. We sometimes do not agree.

On that point, I agree with you.

I have several buddies here and on a couple of other Boards who are committed to the notion that 'abortion' is (and ought to be) a matter for State Law, not Federal Law.

I have never bought that argument. Some of these guys and gals have been persuasive on other issues, so I don't like to just blithely assume that they are wrong. But, like you, I guess I'm just missing the point here or something.

If we ARE discussing the issue of LIFE, then it either IS a human life at some point before birth or it isn't.

If it is not a human life at some point before birth, then it matters not at all EXCEPT that it interferes with the right of a woman to control her own body. If it is NOT a human life, then I would be pro-abortion rights.

But if it IS a human life at some point before birth, then it matters a great deal and is vastly more significant and important that a woman's comparatively minor right to "choose." (Compared only to the value we place on human life, that is.)

If it is a life, then it DOES have by God RIGHTS! It's right to life is not a State issue. It is a guaranteed U.S. Constitutional rights issue.

So there we have it. Another layer of confusion and a deeper level of problem for this entire debate.

I welcome the input of any conservative who can explain to me (I am a slow student on this one) how and why the pre-born child's right to LIFE is a State's right issue and not a U.S. Constitutional guaranteed right issue.

Well said buddy. It's either a life or not, no matter what an individual state might say.

Now might that be an effective compromise to possibly save some babies, maybe, I dunno

[jwil59]

Hey man at least you tried to answer the Op unlike others.
Plenty of methods to kill a fetus/parasite without having to resort to an abortion.
Drinks lots of caffenine, being punched, over working yourself, To much direct Vitiiman C, Body could just reject it, some foods are said to make you misscarry.

I think I have heard of cases where mothers have been charged for damage done to their unborn children through drug abuse

In those cases though the baby don't always die, like with abortion. How could we charge a woman with POSSIBLY doing damage.

[grapabeaux]

Hey man at least you tried to answer the Op unlike others.
Plenty of methods to kill a fetus/parasite without having to resort to an abortion.
Drinks lots of caffenine, being punched, over working yourself, To much direct Vitiiman C, Body could just reject it, some foods are said to make you misscarry.

By the way, you haven't addressed my post about the biological differences between a fetus and a parasite.

Also, you seem to think that the government should delegate its power to take the life of a person. Why you seem to think this translates into a pathological grab for power over women's choices has yet to be explained.

[Plasmaball]

And now i show how a fetus is and can be a parasite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parasitic_twin

At the bottom you can go on to read about Craniopagus Parasiticus and how a "twin" will feed off the other baby.

I am currently trying to find out if the Egg produces a hormone that tricks the mother into thinking its part of her and not have her body try to remove it.

You know outsie of the fetus/parasite needing to be inside a protective sack in order to survive in the mother.
Otherwise the mothers body would reject it

[Plasmaball]

By the way, you haven't addressed my post about the biological differences between a fetus and a parasite.

Also, you seem to think that the government should delegate its power to take the life of a person. Why you seem to think this translates into a pathological grab for power over women's choices has yet to be explained.

I cant copy and paste as of this moment or i would have buddy.
Trust me because i so want to use your source againt you, But i am providing links as we speak.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/human_physiology/The_female_reproductive_system

See: Insufficient cervical mucus ( for the travel and survival of sperm)
If the womans body does not produce this in vast amounts, her body will reject both sperm and Zygote.

I personally think goverment should stay out of personal lives, but looking of a prolifers agenda. It makes sense that they would go for total control of a woman.

I am taking the prolife, all fetuses must be saved and taking it one step further.
It really shows the lack of commitment prolife people take. Comes off overly Thin as well.

You should be ale to smoke, drink, or put in or take out whatever you like to YOUR body.
Cute attempt to say that i was the one advocating for these things. Something i have time and time again stated i am against on here.

[Plasmaball]

I think I have heard of cases where mothers have been charged for damage done to their unborn children through drug abuse

In those cases though the baby don't always die, like with abortion. How could we charge a woman with POSSIBLY doing damage.

Do we not have manslaughter laws? Different levels of murder laws jwil?
Yo would have to link to those things buddy. I know you are an honest guy, but you would expect the same from me. I am glad to see you give doubt tp your claim. Thats stand up!

[grapabeaux]

And now i show how a fetus is and can be a parasite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/parasitic_twin

At the bottom you can go on to read about Craniopagus Parasiticus and how a "twin" will feed off the other baby.

I am currently trying to find out if the Egg produces a hormone that tricks the mother into thinking its part of her and not have her body try to remove it.

You know outsie of the fetus/parasite needing to be inside a protective sack in order to survive in the mother.
Otherwise the mothers body would reject it

Hmmm.

They're the same species, unlike parasite-host.

The new entitiy, genetically distinct but always of the same species, grows within the mother in a protective sac created by the mother. In order for you to consider this a protective measure of the mother against an attack by the fetus, you need to provide evidence that the fetus is attacking the mother. Far from that, it's the mother providing nourishment to the fetus, not the fetus aggressively going after organ tissue of the mother.

What you call self-defense is actually a means to propogate the species and the God-designed way that fetuses can survive to gestation. Creationists and evolutionists would find your argument dumb and insulting.

[Plasmaball]

If a mother knowingly does harm to her child iside or outside her womb she should face the criminal justice system. Any questions?

So you would support laws saying what a woman can and can not put into her body during pregnacy?

[Plasmaball]

Hmmm.

They're the same species, unlike parasite-host.

The new entitiy, genetically distinct but always of the same species, grows within the mother in a protective sac created by the mother. In order for you to consider this a protective measure of the mother against an attack by the fetus, you need to provide evidence that the fetus is attacking the mother. Far from that, it's the mother providing nourishment to the fetus, not the fetus aggressively going after organ tissue of the mother.

What you call self-defense is actually a means to propogate the species and the God-designed way that fetuses can survive to gestation. Creationists and evolutionists would find your argument dumb and insulting.


Doesn't matter if they are the same or not, One is feeding off the other in a parasite like fashion.

Have i stated anywhere that evolution for the most part allows woman to give birth in this fashion, and actually challenge evolution? No
I said the fetus acts nothing more than like a parasite. To me it is a parasite. That doesn't make it good nor bad. That is just a function of evolution. Therefore like i said not all parasites do harm. Or to quote your quote "GENERALLY".


http://sharedjourney.com/define/etf.html

Embryo toxic factor (ETF) refers to an immune system response by your body to an embryo. ETF is secreted by your white blood cells. If your white blood cells produce too much ETF, your body’s immune system is likely to recognize an embryo as a foreign invader. Since the purpose of your white blood cells is to keep your body healthy, your immune system will attack the embryo, causing a miscarriage.

Told you, but NO!!!

http://sharedjourney.com/define/nk.html
Why Natural Killer Cells Cause Miscarriage
In some women, the natural immune system response of the NK cells goes into overdrive. This means that the NK cells view the embryo as a cancer and decide to take action. Once the embryo has been identified as an "invader", your NK cells will multiply in number in order to have more killing power. They will then attach to the embryo and kill it in the same way they would kill any other cell.

Because this is not a typical response of the immune system, it is likely that you will experience multiple miscarriages due to NK cells. However, with a proper diagnosis and treatment, it is possible to successfully achieve pregnancy.

Proving that the mother will in fact treat the fetus as a parasite.

[Chuangtzu]

Well, Chuang, you know me. I don't want anything except absolute, complete, and total power. :whistle:

You are always exempt.

[grapabeaux]

Doesn't matter if they are the same or not, One is feeding off the other in a parasite like fashion.

Have i stated anywhere that evolution for the most part allows woman to give birth in this fashion, and actually challenge evolution? No
I said the fetus acts nothing more than like a parasite. To me it is a parasite. That doesn't make it good nor bad. That is just a function of evolution. Therefore like i said not all parasites do harm. Or to quote your quote "GENERALLY".


http://sharedjourney.com/define/etf.html



Told you, but NO!!!

http://sharedjourney.com/define/nk.html


Proving that the mother will in fact treat the fetus as a parasite.

Does this mean that in your view, a prostitute fellating a client is a parasite also?

[jimjames418]

I welcome the input of any conservative who can explain to me (I am a slow student on this one) how and why the pre-born child's right to LIFE is a State's right issue and not a U.S. Constitutional guaranteed right issue.
To answer that question you must consider if the death pentaly is a states rights issue. Some states impose the death pentaly and some don't. And the supreme court has ruled that the death pentaly is a "states right" issue.

It boils down to when a person believes that life begins. If it begins at conception then it is a "states right" issue as defined by the supreme court. If it begins at birth then and only then can it be a federal issue.

[Plasmaball]

Does this mean that in your view, a prostitute fellating a client is a parasite also?

Move those goal posts!!!
You could just admit you might have been wrong

[grapabeaux]

Move those goal posts!!!
You could just admit you might have been wrong

No, it's just acknowledging your ridiculously broad definition of a parasite-host relationship to mean anything that involves one entity sucking on the body of another.

The only fault is with your failed attempt to conflate gestation with a parasite-host relationship. Basic science proves the distinctions, as I have shown earlier.

[Plasmaball]

No, it's just acknowledging your ridiculously broad definition of a parasite-host relationship to mean anything that involves one entity sucking on the body of another.

The only fault is with your failed attempt to conflate gestation with a parasite-host relationship. Basic science proves the distinctions, as I have shown earlier.

Um. thats. what. my...links..showed. You didnt even attempt to counter anything, just move onto something else.

I guess you are just going to ignore evidence and bulldoze your way because your opinion is the only correct one..

Well i am done with that. I am not interested in wasting my time.

[grapabeaux]

Why the Embryo or Fetus Is Not a Parasite
Quote:

a) A parasite is defined as an organism of one species living in or on an organism of another species (a heterospecific relationship) and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host). (See Cheng, T.C., General Parasitology, p. 7, 1973.)

b) A human embryo or fetus is an organism of one species (Homo sapiens) living in the uterine cavity of an organism of the same species (Homo sapiens) and deriving its nourishment from the mother (is metabolically dependent on the mother). This homospecific relationship is an obligatory dependent relationship, but not a parasitic relationship.

a) A parasite is an invading organism -- coming to parasitize the host from an outside source.

b) A human embryo or fetus is formed from a fertilized egg -- the egg coming from an inside source, being formed in the ovary of the mother from where it moves into the oviduct where it may be fertilized to form the zygote -- the first cell of the new human being.

a) A parasite is generally harmful to some degree to the host that is harboring the parasite.

b) A human embryo or fetus developing in the uterine cavity does not usually cause harm to the mother, although it may if proper nutrition and care is not maintained by the mother.

a) A parasite makes direct contact with the host's tissues, often holding on by either mouth parts, hooks or suckers to the tissues involved (intestinal lining, lungs, connective tissue, etc.).

b) A human embryo or fetus makes direct contact with the uterine lining of the mother for only a short period of time. It soon becomes isolated inside its own amniotic sac, and from that point on makes indirect contact with the mother only by way of the umbilical cord and placenta....
_________________________

These facts are unavoidable, but thanks for playing.

[Plasmaball]

First site your source like i did please.

a) does the fetus do or do not derive its "food" from the host? Are you denying that a fetus has simular qualities to a parasite?

b)Yes and i have already proven regardless of it being the same species the host(mother) will and can treat the zygote as an invading entity. Something youseem to be ignoring.

a) What the hell is sperm them? What is the man having sex with the woman then? a robot that can inject it?

b)You are ignoring Biological like i pointed out. At least you could give the full range of facts and not cherry pick.

a)See, Cord and sack that the fetus uses. Or you going to deny the fetus is not connected to the host FOR FOOD.

b)Christ you answer the above statement and make my point yourself.Thank you
Paasites can attach for short periods of time before letting go and moving on. Sounds like a fetus.

Whoops.

OH btw...site your sources.

[Liability]

To answer that question you must consider if the death pentaly is a states rights issue. Some states impose the death pentaly and some don't. And the supreme court has ruled that the death pentaly is a "states right" issue.

It boils down to when a person believes that life begins. If it begins at conception then it is a "states right" issue as defined by the supreme court. If it begins at birth then and only then can it be a federal issue.

The death penalty is a penalty and involves the lawful process by which guilt and punishment are determined.

His right to go on living turns on whether he has so violated our basic laws that he can be said to have forfeited his right.

There is no analog for a completely innocent pre-born human being. His (or her) right to life hasn't been forfeited based on ANYTHING the pre-born child has done. It is just taken. And if we believe in a right to life, then it is not supposed to be just so casually taken.

As a result, for me, the bottom line remains that it makes sense that the issue of whether to impose a death penalty is a state's rights issue. It doesn't make sense that abortion qualifies.

And if we cannot definitively answer the actual question of when life begins, then why would we not err on the side of caution and the side of life? I fail to see to this moment how we are obliged to defer such a question to the vaguaries of State law-making.