according to you, they are an inevitable part of EVERY pregnancy! Are you backing off of that statement?! surely not, the other members here will draw and quarter you! EVERY pregnancy is a disgrace to the masterpiece that is a woman's body and once a woman allows herself to be ruined thusly, she is damaged goods forever...never again to partake of any of lifes joys. no all mothers are to be scorned and mocked...abortion is FAR preferable. and after we eradicate the scourge of pregnancy, we should decree no woman shall be allowed to age, because that too causes changes in a body that are NOT attractive to the Lesbian and male members of the world and that is all that is important about being a woman, how attractive her body is. in fact, I move that all women that gain weight (even through medical problems such as thyroid imbalances) should be summarily executed, we can not have unattractive, damaged women walking around! men on the other hand, as you and your cohort's silence indicates...it doesn't matter what happens to THEIR bodies as they age or gain weight..THEY have value just because they are men. proabortionists disgust me, not just for how they view fetuses but how they view women. I don't think Susan B Anthony meant for this to be the results...women mocked and judged by other women based on their looks and functionability. I thought the whole women's lib movement was intended to FREE women from being seen as sex objects not just to change who does the judging. It isn't any less degrading if it is the feminazis that get to be judge and jury. SHAME on all of you.
See, I view ALL women as beautiful and worthy, each in their own way. I know a woman that not only *GASP* allowed her body to be "destroyed" thru pregnancy but also had an operation to remove her ovaries in which the doc made a mistake and she woke up with massive brain damage, blind, memory problems, loss of body control... she gained fifty pounds, couldn't/wouldn't walk without three people guiding her, one on each side and one in front..but I have watched in absolute awe as she fought back from it and now she shows horses in hand...running across a dirty arena, leading a horse BLIND.. she is heart stoppingly beautiful. I have an aunt, 94 years old, bent with osteoarthritis, barely able to stand up straight; probably a hundred pounds overweight, missing teeth...but every time I see her, she has a huge welcoming, delighted smile on her face and food cooking on the stove...SHE is beautiful too. how shallow and meanspirited to call women 'drudges' and 'brood mares'...to call natural changes 'damage' as if women aren't allowed to be women, aren't allowed to live life to their own tune.
We all know that people can have a beautiful spirit even when their bodies are not perfect. But no matter how beautiful the spirit, the body is still damaged. The shallowness and meanspiritedness belongs to pro-lifers when their forced birth policies force women to be 'drudges' and 'brood mares'. And certainly it is pro-choicers who want women allowed to live life to their own tune.
I don't think any pro lifer cares if someone who actively promotes brutal premeditated homicide calls them "mean spirited". It is actually funny that you would be so bold as to say such a thing.
It is actually funny that you would call abortion a "brutal premeditated homicide", and do it repeatedly.
Well first of all it is self evident, and secondly many legislatures agree with me as does a federal law on the books.
Only to the truly ignorant or obtuse, only to them. Do not delude yourself, no one agrees with you on this.
This is obviously untrue as evidenced by the prolification of fetal homicide laws, the federal law I mentioned, and any signoficant level of rational thought. Now don't start resorting to blatant lies again.
it is pretty funny isnt' it? SHE thinks it is 'meanspirited' to want to save infants...but doesn't think it is at ALL mean spirited to pull a live baby half out of a womb and chop it up..or deliver a live baby and toss it in a linen closet to die... no, her comments don't hurt MY feelings, I know the forces of darkness when I see them...
I did! I am agreeing with you, ALL mothers are wrecks...just unattractive messes that dont' deserve any respect at all and should be called names and denigrated for making the 'unfeminazi' choice to be what nature made her to be.
For the third time .. no one is claiming the daughter cells are the initial zygote. What is the difference between the daughter cells and the parent zygote that they should not have equal status ?
The ensuing cells are growth of the organism. The organism deserves the status, whether he/she is one cell or thousands.
How does the method of their creation change their status (be it reproduction (correct terminology) or growth. To make your case you need to state: 1) On what basis you think the zygote deserves its status: and then 2) Show that the daughter cells differ from the zygote in relation (1)
Ummm, you aren't talking about "infants", you're talking about zefs. Misuse of semantics to mislead and obscure the issue, IOW, lie. No thinking person is going to be misled by your hyperbole. Hyperbole is just another form of dishonesty, IOW, a lie.
Wow you really have trouble comprehending posts. 1.) The zygote is the initial cell in the development of a new human being, so a zygote is a human being. That is why the status is there. 2.) The daughter cells combined are one human being, just as a zygote is.
The daughter cell is often the "initial cell" for the creation of a new human. So indeed it does fit into your definition for receiving status.
Except when it becomes two. Except when they become two. Now perhaps you can explain how one human being can become instantly two.
Great .. Im glad we agree. The two daughter cells after the first mitosis have equal status to the zygote.
Collectively? Yes, individually? No, unless they develop into naturally cloned human beings (identical twins). The organism collectively is worthy of the status.
Just to clarify, these are my statements, and they clearly show I never said "ALL mothers are wrecks": Do do you want to answer the question without evasion this time: Can pregnancy cause stretch marks, pelvic floor disorder, tearing, or weakened stomach muscles? Is there a risk for them in ANY pregnancy? Or do you want to stay with YOUR stated position, "all mothers are wrecks."
typical Progressive tactic...insist on a point then claim the other side came UP with the point... You never qualify your comments, I can't help it if hearing them back bothers you. YOU and your friends call women that have children "Drudges" and "brood stock". Live with it or stop doing it.
using your scientific method of deducing mothers by their appearance (with all mothers being horrific disasters....) here is ANOTHER mother! because ONLY pregnancy ruins a body, right? there can be no other explanation!! look at that weight, the saggy boobs, the flabby arms. OBVIOUS signs of baby disease!
