but they are dependent for survival.... whats the difference between birth and not birth? especially since after 21 weeks its been proven that babies can survive outside the womb. so whats the big change in birth??
The biggest change in birth is that you are no longer a dependent connected entity inside of your mother's body. Someone who requires help breathing or eating does not require that help from one unique specific person out of the almost 7 billion people on the planet and they are most certainly not a dependent connected entity inside someone else's body. And babies at 21 weeks do not survive on their own, not without extensive advanced medical technology and even then, the survival rate isn't that great. They call it premature for a reason.
Please read this article and the links within it to see what's the big change in birth. And please remember the difference between physical dependence and social dependence. It's critical to your understanding. http://eileen.undonet.com/Main/7_R_Eile/Human_Metamorphosis.html First I'd like to take issue with your ( and many other people's) claim that "it is very difficult, for example, to support the argument that there's a profound physical difference between an infant 1 hour before birth and the same infant 1 hour later." Take a look at the changes that occur in one system only and it might give you a clue as to what birth really consists of and the wonder that it actually is. I've described it as a form of metamorphosis in the past and that's exactly what it is. Cutting the umbilical cord does not cause an insect-like metamorphosis, I'll grant. The major change is from a developing entity which is a part of a woman's body to an independent organism which is self contained. Prior to birth we have a human entity, growing and developing toward organism status, which draws its nourishment, oxygen, and has it's detoxification of blood, and homeostasis maintained by the organism it is a part of. This source before birth is the only source available. A fetus is not an air breather, the born organism is.
same goes for many people who are of all different ages who are in the hospital..... and i proved you wrong. babies after 21 weeks have been proven that they are not dependent on the woman's body. so they dont have to be dependents anyways, this isnt about dependency to the mother, it never was. because even if the baby still wasnt dependent on the mother, you would still support killing it http://www.politicalforum.com/abortion/279308-question-pro-choice-people-8.html
Why is "miscarriage" - we have few real definitives for what causes miscarriage among those things that have been implicated are too much caffeine, smoking, NSAID's Paw Paw etc - why not blame a woman for doing the wrong thing at the wrong time?
Who have all been born. How has that been proven? Provide some evidence. If a baby is born that premature, it will die without extensive medical care because it has not actually achieved the capability for independence yet. In any case, a baby born that early would still have been born and would have rights. Sure it is. That's part of the basis for a mother's right to have an abortion. But if you believe otherwise, show me how a fetus lives inside it's mother while not being dependent on her. I didn't realize Dominos delivered in utero. It's still her choice, but as I said in the thread you linked here, if your hypothetical was true it would almost certainly reduce abortion rates.
well if you still support abortion while there is another option that keeps both people alive and does not harm the woman in any way obviously you are evil. you just wanna see kids dead.
You keep thinking I go into this with a specific outcome in mind. I don't have one. Whatever the outcome is, I am fine as long as it was the mother that got to choose it. If there was never another abortion after today, that would be a great thing. But I'm not for taking away a person's choice over their own body.
its not their body though.. as i stated thier body is effected exactly the same. the fertilized egg/embryo isnt a woman's body though any way you spin it. the truth has been revealed.
But the fertilised egg, or more correctly the blastocyst, requires implantation into a host to develop Surprisingly that does not need to be a female - they have done experiments with mice and found that fertilised eggs implanted into male mice did develop normally - although the best site for the implantation was the scrotal sac.
It certainly is their body. My gosh, do you not even understand the basic physiology of pregnancy? Whose body is the embryo attaching to if not the woman's? Or is this just your clever way of saying that the woman's body is no longer hers during a pregnancy?
That's right. When two lives are in the same boat. Woman and fetus are sharing the womb. The women signed away her sole rights to this organ for a period of 9 months when she spread her legs during sexual intercourse. Let me share a little quote that progressives are otherwise quite fond of; "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs". Now tell me, you progressive pro-choicers, why shouldn't this line of reasoning apply during pregnancy also?
That's all well and good except she didn't actually sign anything. You're just saying she did. You're making it up as you go. Who says progressives are fond of that? I've never personally been fond of that phrase at all. You're making that up too. You know, fabricating things is not usually a sign of a cogent argument. Any other desperate measures up your sleeve?
the truth has been revealed... theyres no point in talking about this any further. obviously you dont care about a fertilized human egg, all you care about is destroying it.
Can't say I have any kind of bias against fertilized human eggs... However I do have a bias against people who want to butt into other people's lives and take away personal health choices from them.
I don't want to destroy them for no reason. Perhaps quote me back something I've said which would imply that I want to destroy fertilized human eggs for no reason? Quote me back something I've written where I've said I want to destroy anything.
Meh! Mother Nature is the biggest killer of fertilised human eggs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beginning_of_pregnancy_controversy
your for abortion even when theyres another option in which women are freed of all physical and economical responsibilities, and at the same time the embryo can grow up like we all have
Sorry - "women are freed of all physical and economical responsibilities" please tell me more about this little fantasy world11
Then hopefully you will respect other people's lives too, and not vote for a party that wants to butt into peoples lives and ban various types of guns and lightbulbs.
Hmmm - respect is a two way street and you should also respect the rights of people to vote for whomsoever they like
Pro-choicers also want to butt into the lives of the unborn, butt into their lives with a sharp vacuum hose!
I've noticed you rarely reply to me, is that because I call you out on your stupid comments .. The unborn don't have a life, they do have a potential life ahead of them, doesn't mean its guaranteed.
