Well St Anne... you're a great lady with a kind heart, thank goodness for you. I can't imagine anyone being forced to have a child with Tye Sachs by rule of law...but I guess we differ....
Good luck in your struggles in this life, I hope all goes well for you and yours.,.,. you're all cool by me... I think we've just about exhausted our views, I've left with the understanding that you are a good person that I simply disagree with about a certain subject; I hope you feel the same..
As you may have noted, I do not insult those I disagree with until they say some smart ass remark, you have refrained from doing anything other then presenting your views, I didn't jump for those reasons.
I feel you did a good job saying what you felt, and feel as if I've learned something from you... good day my sister... Huff
Posts by dawg
-
148Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
-
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
St anne, you said this..."Whose definition? That of science?" Well yes, we as humans definde all sorts of things don't we? That's because we have no God defining what words we shall use, we make them up as we go along.
Scientist have been studying prenatal cases for many years now, I'm not sure but I think for about 400 years, they have looked into their microscopes and made definitions about what they were seeing.. who else is going to do this? God?
See, what I'm saying is this, you are trying to use your religion to define for the rest of us what we are seeing... you seem like a generous lady, and I think in your heart you're trying to be open, but religion taints your view... you don't "believe in evolution" for instance...
Its all good the way I see it, you defending all life, me trying to find a middle, I'm sure it'll all come out in the wash... -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
St anne, you're cool by me, as I've said, I love your passion... its all cool...
You state this in your answer..."I really don't care what Wikipedia calls it. Logically, to me, it's a baby". My question is, can't you see that many others feel differently and that we have not only scientific explanations/definitions we've formed our opinions with, but many of us are like myself and have seen firsthand what a zygote and embryo is? To me, zygotes and embryos are not human beings... that's my logical opinion
You don't have to agree with it, and you yourself haven't done this, but I've read where people call people like me terminating the pregnancy murderers... that's horse crap in my opinion...
And, to make matters worse, some bring their religions into this debate, they have no qualms forcing their religious views on the rest of us.
I'm not accusing you just asking... don't you think your judgment may be tainted by your views that God installs souls into the fertilized egg? -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
The first picture you posted didn't come through... plain and simple.. I avoid nothing and answer all questions...I doubt you posted a photo of a zygote or a embryo on that photo.
This photo has no zygotes in it... read what I've said without prejudging what you think my views are; I've stated clearly what I think and I get a photo of unborn fetuses as a reply? That makes no sense.... -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
Mega, I don't agree with Roe V Wade... I think we live in the modern age and we can know when a person is pregnant early enough to end the pregnancy long before a zygote can form even to an embryo. We have RU486, we have the morning after pill, we have piss tests for pregnancy, people have way too many options....
I do not agree that any fetus should terminated, period... I see those on the right as having a noble cause in the case of abortion, but they do as they always do, they feel without using logic and bring their religions into the equation and can't think with a level head.
A fetus is defined by this... "In humans, the fetal stage of prenatal development starts at the beginning of the 11th week in gestational age (the 9th week after fertilization)".[2] [3]
I think we have way to many options to allow any embryo to develop into a fetus, women should by law, yes by law, be forced to carry the pregnancy if they've allowed themselves to be pregnant that long. I would say its manslaughter if they end pregnancies at that stage, border lining on murder and would have no problem ruling from any bench and enforcing that view. Except in cases where the mother's life in in danger, or when a embryo is known to carry genetic traits they are sure to die from; hard choices must be made in these events and the state has no right to but their heads into these cases.
I see the argument for human life as being noble, but I think we know now what defines a human as a human, and zygotes clearly aren't human beings... nor are embryos which are indistinguishable at that stage in development from every other mammal. Fetuses are right out, they are clearly (in my mind) humans, no excuse for letting the pregnancy last that long in today;s day and age.
Its not a clear cut case in any event, those are my opinions... I'm not a doctor, but have seen all the stages of prenatal development under a microscope and elsewhere and this is the conclusion I come up with after much thought on the subject.
I find it inconceivable that anyone thinks the killing if you will of a group of cells no bigger than a pin head "murder" as some have described here on this site. I know that its their religions that make them take this stand, as no rational human would consider the slides I've seen of zygotes in any way "human"...
It's be good if some degree of rationality could be brought to this subject, I think both sides have done what they always do and dug in their heels... sad that so many suffer when this happens...
So, to answer your question, I'm against the killing of anyone born alive... period, I consider it murder and would have no problem sentencing those guilty of such a crime. -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
I think this is the reason almost no one dared say that abortion is murder and subject to the same penalties as murder.
And that almost no one dared say that a "law" should be passed making rape victims have the child of the rapist. -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
Midget-If you feel that way then you condone murder don't you? Its obvious you don't see zygotes as human if you're willing to kill them just because you know they're going to die... you don't go into a room with terminal patients and machine gun them just to stop their suffering do you?
Two things I've learned, most of you tie abortion into your religious beliefs...
and you guys know better than zygotes being human... your religions are blinding your judgments in my mind. -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
St anne, it's going to be hard to retract the truth you told earlier... now you say..."I'll take you up on two things. I believe life begins at conception, regardless of a soul or religious leaning" A retraction of this sort just doesn't stand, the cat's out of the bag, you think God installs a soul at conception... too late... I'm sure you're one of the few that told the truth in this case and I thank you for it.
Then you say this... "and so long as they can call a baby a "clump of cells" or a "zygote," they're able to dehumanize that wee baby into a pile of tissue". The definition of what you're referring to as a clump of cells, is a zygote, its not a definition I came up with, it is in fact a correct definition from wikipedia... calling zygotes babies isn't a correct definition. This is a fact, you are trying to define zygotes as humans, but I can't find a definition that fits your bill.
Then, as if you've proven your point beyond dispute you say this... "Treating babies as if they're disposable is a symptom of an illness in our society"... you have yet to make those of us whom differ see your point, this statement is an attack... but we're cool. I love your passion.
Then you say this... "Regarding people being "saved" from hardship because they found out they were having a handicapped child: I have two severely handicapped children. Lots of people wanted them aborted. Thank God they're here"!
I may have not made this clear, I was talking about "babies dieing" in fact, that's what I said... I was thinking about Tye Sachs syndrome when I wrote that... you may know what it is, but if not then look it up... having a child only for it to suffer a miserable death, makes no sense to me. There are many more mistakes God makes that causes undue suffering and death to newborns, I'm sure a quick google will leave you breathless when you find out the suffering babies endure only to die.
That was my fault, I didn't make myself clear on that point... -
148
Since you on the right won't answer this question. Abortion
by dawg ini posed this question on another thread... namely burns and hooberus...wouldn't answer, so i thought i'd ask it again in an open thread..., .
you on the right disagree with roe v wade... so that means that you want to redefine when a zygote, embryo, or a fetus has what anyone would rule for lack of better words "the right to life"... .
exactly when is life, human as per your definition?
-
-
dawg
Brant, I think you might want to read all the posts, see if all that you're saying and asking isn't addressed in full detail, and then wonder why you asked this question and made the remarks you made.... Duh! LOL!
-
16
Hi everyone, here's my story...
by LisaAnn ini loved it, it was very interesting... tell the rest...
-
-
dawg
I loved it, it was very interesting... tell the rest...