Science > Abortion > Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course)
| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Spartakus" |
| Date: |
14 Jan 2007 11:12:39 PM |
| Object: |
Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
TheJazzman wrote:
Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course)
.
Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Daniel Rauch, MD, FAAP, Director, Pediatric Hospitalist Program,
Associate Professor of Pediatrics, NYU School of Medicine, New York.
Provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.
MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fetal : Development: A service of the
US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
.
|
|
| User: "TheJazzman" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
14 Jan 2007 11:59:16 PM |
|
|
Spartakus wrote:
TheJazzman wrote:
Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course)
.
Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Daniel Rauch, MD, FAAP, Director, Pediatric Hospitalist Program,
Associate Professor of Pediatrics, NYU School of Medicine, New York.
Provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.
MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fetal : Development: A service of the
US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child. I
adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn child
has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social or
cultural trends.
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
15 Jan 2007 12:19:12 AM |
|
|
"TheJazzman" <kgstph@gmail.com> writes:
Spartakus wrote:
TheJazzman wrote:
Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course)
Source: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/002398.htm
Daniel Rauch, MD, FAAP, Director, Pediatric Hospitalist Program,
Associate Professor of Pediatrics, NYU School of Medicine, New York.
Provided by VeriMed Healthcare Network.
MedlinePlus Medical Encyclopedia: Fetal : Development: A service of the
US National Library of Medicine and National Institutes of Health
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child. I
adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn child
has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social or
cultural trends.
What biological "view"? The only opinions are from morals, and those are our
creations.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 6, Houston 0 (January 14)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 19 vs. Manchester, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
15 Jan 2007 09:44:56 AM |
|
|
TheJazzman tries to ignore the question:
Spartakus wrote:
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child.
I adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn
child has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social
or cultural trends.
There is no *biological* view that fetuses have civil rights.
Biologically, the fetus is part of the woman until parturition. If you
insist on calling a fetus a "person", you are in a bind. One, because
*persons* have responsibilities and obligations as well as rights.
That means that the fetus has an obligation not to harm the woman, even
unintentionally. Two, because even born, breathing persons have no
right to access the bodily resources of another person without that
person's consent. Which brings us to the question you previously tried
to ignore: why should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that
no born person has?
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheJazzman" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
15 Jan 2007 01:29:45 PM |
|
|
This is a biological/moral discussion not social/legal. Please note the
difference.
Spartakus wrote:
TheJazzman tries to ignore the question:
Spartakus wrote:
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child.
I adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn
child has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social
or cultural trends.
There is no *biological* view that fetuses have civil rights.
Biologically, the fetus is part of the woman until parturition. If you
insist on calling a fetus a "person", you are in a bind. One, because
*persons* have responsibilities and obligations as well as rights.
That means that the fetus has an obligation not to harm the woman, even
unintentionally. Two, because even born, breathing persons have no
right to access the bodily resources of another person without that
person's consent. Which brings us to the question you previously tried
to ignore: why should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that
no born person has?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
15 Jan 2007 01:59:53 PM |
|
|
"TheJazzman" <kgstph@gmail.com> writes:
Spartakus wrote:
TheJazzman tries to ignore the question:
Spartakus wrote:
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child.
I adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn
child has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social
or cultural trends.
There is no *biological* view that fetuses have civil rights.
Biologically, the fetus is part of the woman until parturition. If you
insist on calling a fetus a "person", you are in a bind. One, because
*persons* have responsibilities and obligations as well as rights.
That means that the fetus has an obligation not to harm the woman, even
unintentionally. Two, because even born, breathing persons have no
right to access the bodily resources of another person without that
person's consent. Which brings us to the question you previously tried
to ignore: why should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that
no born person has?
This is a biological/moral discussion not social/legal. Please note the
difference.
Your morals are your problem. This pro-choicer shoots back.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 6, Houston 0 (January 14)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 19 vs. Manchester, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: Re: Baby Making 101: The Beginning (A refresher Course) |
15 Jan 2007 09:37:26 PM |
|
|
TheJazzman wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
TheJazzman tries to ignore the question:
Spartakus wrote:
Whatever biological facts you present (and/or misrepresent), the fact
is that no born person has the right to access the bodily resources of
an unwilling would-be donor, even if withholding those resources
results in the death of the would-be beneficiary. If you consider
embryos and fetuses to be persons, the principle still applies. Why
should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that no born person
has?
I am aware of the current socio/legal regarding the unborn child.
I adhere to a moral and biological view that states that the unborn
child has civil rights from conception regardless of currently social
or cultural trends.
There is no *biological* view that fetuses have civil rights.
Biologically, the fetus is part of the woman until parturition. If you
insist on calling a fetus a "person", you are in a bind. One, because
*persons* have responsibilities and obligations as well as rights.
That means that the fetus has an obligation not to harm the woman, even
unintentionally. Two, because even born, breathing persons have no
right to access the bodily resources of another person without that
person's consent. Which brings us to the question you previously tried
to ignore: why should we give embryos and fetuses special rights that
no born person has?
This is a biological/moral discussion not social/legal. Please note the
difference.
Ah, so you can't or won't respond to my question.
There is nothing moral about biology, Jazzman. There is nothing moral
about the government or the church overruling a woman's right to her
own body either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Spartakus" |
|
| Title: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
15 Jan 2007 10:23:02 PM |
|
|
TheJazzman wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
There is nothing moral about biology, Jazzman. There is nothing moral
about the government or the church overruling a woman's right to her
own body either.
This discussion is not about the woman's body or current socio/legal
trends it is about the sanctity and protection of (potential) human
life.
"Woman? What woman?"
.
|
|
|
| User: "LC" |
|
| Title: Re: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
15 Jan 2007 10:53:32 PM |
|
|
Just out of curiousity, how many of you baby killers are "vegetarian"?
Do the vegetarian baby killers wear leather shoes? Where do you think
your leather shoes come from? I wonder if any of the abortion clinic
workers save up the dead fetus leftovers and make shoes out of them?
.
|
|
|
| User: "The Chief Instigator" |
|
| Title: Re: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
15 Jan 2007 11:38:39 PM |
|
|
"LC" <h_e_l_l_o2u@yahoo.com> writes:
Just out of curiousity, how many of you baby killers are "vegetarian"?
Do the vegetarian baby killers wear leather shoes? Where do you think
your leather shoes come from? I wonder if any of the abortion clinic
workers save up the dead fetus leftovers and make shoes out of them?
I wonder if anyone's fooled by your latest impotent sock, "Lisa".
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2006-07 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: San Antonio 6, Houston 0 (January 14)
NEXT GAME: Friday, January 19 vs. Manchester, 7:35
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Anderson" |
|
| Title: Re: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
16 Jan 2007 03:29:39 PM |
|
|
On 15 Jan 2007 20:23:02 -0800, "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com>
wrote:
TheJazzman wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
There is nothing moral about biology, Jazzman. There is nothing moral
about the government or the church overruling a woman's right to her
own body either.
This discussion is not about the woman's body or current socio/legal
trends it is about the sanctity and protection of (potential) human
life.
"Woman? What woman?"
*THE* basic right is that of body autonomy. My Body, I get to say
what is to be done to it and with it; with minor exceptions due to my
living in a society with others with the same rights that I hold for
myself. I have long been seeking justification to ban abortion. Such
justification cannot be based upon falsehoods, nor can it ignore the
basic human right of bodily autonomy.
As far as the discussion being about "the sanctity and protection of
(potential) human life" -- *****. Human life is neither sacred nor
protected. The only way I can see to ban abortion is to elevate the
fetus into Godhood, with rights and protections that excede that of
mere human beings, and which it will lose the moment it is born.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TheJazzman" |
|
| Title: Re: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
17 Jan 2007 12:09:07 AM |
|
|
Paul Anderson wrote:
On 15 Jan 2007 20:23:02 -0800, "Spartakus" <spartakus@my-deja.com>
wrote:
TheJazzman wrote:
Spartakus wrote:
There is nothing moral about biology, Jazzman. There is nothing moral
about the government or the church overruling a woman's right to her
own body either.
This discussion is not about the woman's body or current socio/legal
trends it is about the sanctity and protection of (potential) human
life.
"Woman? What woman?"
*THE* basic right is that of body autonomy. My Body, I get to say
what is to be done to it and with it; with minor exceptions due to my
living in a society with others with the same rights that I hold for
myself. I have long been seeking justification to ban abortion. Such
justification cannot be based upon falsehoods, nor can it ignore the
basic human right of bodily autonomy.
As far as the discussion being about "the sanctity and protection of
(potential) human life" -- *****. Human life is neither sacred nor
protected. The only way I can see to ban abortion is to elevate the
fetus into Godhood, with rights and protections that excede that of
mere human beings, and which it will lose the moment it is born.
Paul
You are a sad and pathetic individual if you think your life or other
peoples lives are neither sacred or worth protecting! If true you have
joined the ranks of the living dead (serial killers, suicidal bombers,
etc)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: This is what it always comes down to, no matter how anti-choicers frame it |
17 Jan 2007 12:13:29 AM |
|
|
TheJazzman <kgstph@gmail.com> wrote:
Paul Anderson wrote:
As far as the discussion being about "the sanctity and protection of
(potential) human life" -- *****. Human life is neither sacred nor
protected. The only way I can see to ban abortion is to elevate the
fetus into Godhood, with rights and protections that excede that of
mere human beings, and which it will lose the moment it is born.
Paul
You are a sad and pathetic individual if you think your life or other
peoples lives are neither sacred or worth protecting!
But you're not protecting anybody. You're just demasnding the abject
servitude of pregnant women. You certainly don't care who lives or
dies.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
