| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"Mercury" |
| Date: |
15 Mar 2005 09:55:45 PM |
| Object: |
So when is it a human being? |
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew W \Paranormal Agnostic" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
17 Mar 2005 04:15:33 PM |
|
|
"Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null> wrote in message
news:1110945372.715625@www.vif.com...
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
I think its impossible to determine when a offspring becomes an actual
person, because being a person basically means to have a personality, and
even the way a baby kicks inside its mother can be interpreted as
personality.
One can never win such an argument.
The real question should be - does God want every single foetus to come to
term?
God works in mysterious ways remember, so we can never be sure what his
population control methods might be.
We already know that God values the soul far more than the physical body by
the number of humans that are allowed to die each day.
Also then there is the great flood which wiped out nearly all life on the
globe including innocent animals.
It seems that maybe quality is more important than quantity, in which case
we should just get on with living life instead of trying to guess and assume
what 'God' wants and doesn't want.
--
Andrew W.
History books that contain no lies are extremely dull. The christian bible
is a very interesting book indeed.
Religion Exposed!
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~ajwerner
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
17 Mar 2005 05:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 18 Mar 2005 09:15:33 +1100, "Andrew W \(Paranormal Agnostic\)"
<nospaam_ajwerner@optushome.com.au> in alt.abortion with message-id
<423a0186$0$22218$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> wrote:
"Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null> wrote in message
news:1110945372.715625@www.vif.com...
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
I think its impossible to determine when a offspring becomes an actual
person, because being a person basically means to have a personality, and
even the way a baby kicks inside its mother can be interpreted as
personality.
One can never win such an argument.
No, it is easy. Being born alive is the only requirement.
As far as your 'personality' is concerned being born alive but with
little or no brain activity and thus no personality does not prevent
personhood.
The real question should be - does God want every single foetus to come to
term?
Which god would that be? Please prove your god actually exists.
God works in mysterious ways remember, so we can never be sure what his
population control methods might be.
We already know that God values the soul
Prove a soul exists.
far more than the physical body by
the number of humans that are allowed to die each day.
Also then there is the great flood which wiped out nearly all life on the
globe including innocent animals.
But there is no evidence it actually happened.
It seems that maybe quality is more important than quantity, in which case
we should just get on with living life instead of trying to guess and assume
what 'God' wants and doesn't want.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
15 Mar 2005 10:47:32 PM |
|
|
Mercury <nobody@nospam.null> wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
According to law and tradition, the life of a human being begins at
birth.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being.
Of course there is.
The process is only a change of
location.
What an impressively stupid statement.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
18 Mar 2005 03:00:56 AM |
|
|
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mercury <nobody@nospam.null> wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
According to law and tradition, the life of a human being begins at
birth.
Nice try, now try again without mentioning law and tradition. The life
of a human being begins at their beginning! Fertilisation! Which is why
it is also referred to as CONCEPTION.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with
all the
rights and privileges of a human being.
Of course there is.
No there isn't
The process is only a change of
location.
What an impressively stupid statement.
It is true. Location and some physiological changes in the young human.
Human development begins at fertilisation, this is a FACT.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
18 Mar 2005 09:12:52 PM |
|
|
<legend_89@hotmail.com> wrote:
Ray Fischer wrote:
Mercury <nobody@nospam.null> wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
According to law and tradition, the life of a human being begins at
birth.
Nice try, now try again without mentioning law and tradition.
Why?
The life
of a human being begins at their beginning!
Birth.
Fertilisation!
Prove it.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with
all the
rights and privileges of a human being.
Of course there is.
No there isn't
Stamp your foot and somebody might be impressed.
The process is only a change of
location.
What an impressively stupid statement.
It is true.
It is an outright lie, and a stupid one at that.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
15 Mar 2005 11:08:26 PM |
|
|
Mercury wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being.
In the U.S., rights are granted to those who are legally considered
persons, not human beings.
And yes, status as a person is wholly dependent on being born.
The process is only a change of location.
It's a little more than that. That's almost like saying that death is
merely a change of position; from upright to prone.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
There is no doubt that it absolutely could and definitely does. One can
only become a person by being born.
So when is it a person?
As soon as it's born.
You saying "no it isn't" doesn't change the fact that it is.
The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
There are numerous problems with that line of thought:
-Conception is not a change in it's very nature, it's a continuation of
a process.
-Conception happens at an unknowable time and is an unobservable event
under normal circumstances. That's why we don't celebrate "conception
days" and age is based on date of birth, not date of birth plus 9 months.
-Laws can't be based on an unknowable, unobservable event.
Anti-lifers,
There are none of those here.
please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
lol! "Prove it to me or I win". You ask for a logical explanation, but
after that, I don't know if you'd recognize one. Let's give it a shot
anyway...
When discussing abortion, the only factor that applies is the legality
of the procedure. No one can expect any other adult to conform to their
personal views of right or wrong, but the law applies equally to all, so
the legal status of abortion is all that can be reasonably discussed.
In the United States, "person" is a status that is conferred by law.
Someone considered a person in the U.S. may not be considered a person
in other societies, as their laws may differ.
In 2002, the United States government passed the Born-Alive Infants
Protection Act. Among other things, this law states that one of it's
primary purposes is (and I quote) "to establish firmly that, for the
purposes of Federal Law, the term 'person' includes an infant who is
completely expelled or extracted from his mother and who is alive,
regardless of whether or not the baby's development is believed to be,
or is in fact, sufficient to permit long-term survival, and regardless
of whether the baby survived an abortion."
This law specifically defines the exact point in time when one is
considered a person. In a nutshell, one is considered a person by being
born.
Taking it a step further, we can then reference Section 1 of the 14th
Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which says:
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to
the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the
State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which
shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United
States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
This establishes, in no uncertain terms, that only those persons who
were born or naturalized in the U.S. receive the rights to life,
liberty, due process, and equal protection.
Therefore, a fetus is not considered a person in the United States due
to the fact that it has not been born.
In the United States, the Consitution states that those not considered a
person can not be considered citizens, and therefore do not receive the
citizens-only benefit of the right to life.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
15 Mar 2005 10:30:22 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 07:03:28 AM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Patrick Lee Humphrey" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:45:16 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> writes:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You obviously don't get out very much.
You are wrong.
If you claim that, it's likely he's right.
A fetus is a person.
Really? Name one. (What date is on your driver's license -- conception date
or birth date?)
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
Maybe you should think, period.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (patrick@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (TCI's 2004-05 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Cincinnati 3, Houston 0 (March 14)
NEXT GAME: Wednesday, March 16 at Utah, 8:05
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:46:09 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 11:17:06 AM |
|
|
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:v4lg3191foj1migvdlv16m0votu6khbd07@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
You mean there will be no more persons?
There are no persons to be born today?
If there are persons to be born today then they would have been persons
before birth, because a person to be born signifies that they existed before
birth.
Why do you ignore the being before birth, the person?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Your ignorance is what will defeat you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 11:35:56 AM |
|
|
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%MZZd.32874$6g7.29947@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:v4lg3191foj1migvdlv16m0votu6khbd07@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
You mean there will be no more persons?
True, by legal definition a person is a person after birth. However, using
that as an argument with the issue of abortion, there are problems. The
issue of abortion, is a universal issue. The definition of person is not.
Now, by law in the U.S., you are not a "person" until birth. However, the
unborn child is still a human being. This is the part many people in the
pro-choice camp have a hard time dealing with and are working feverously on
trying to distort the meanings of terms.
This is why terms are so important to many on the pro-choice side. They
can't allow the fetus to be viewed as a human being. They must fight this
and avoid it at all cost.
Another example is how they react to terms like "P.B.A."
What is P.B.A.? Very simple, partial birth abortion What does it mean? It
means the unborn child is "partially" removed in order to end the life of
the child. They can NOT allow "birth" because then they could not legally
kill the child.
Uh oh...I did it now..I said child. Well, doesn't matter because if you
look up the definition of child, it includes "fetus". Another thorn in
their side.
They will even go as far as arguing when a woman is a mother. Even though
the definition of mother includes a woman who is pregnant.
Red flag terms that the pro-choice camp will fight on and get very upset
about.
pro-abortion - means nothing more than a person who favors and/or supports
legalized abortion
life
human being
child
baby
infant
They will even go as far as comparing a human sperm to a human being.
Yes a human sperm is living, it is a human organism. A human being though,
it is not. You can NOT have a human being with out conception, another red
flag word.
Here is something most will get upset about.
They say that they support a woman's right to choose to terminate her
pregnancy.
O.k., fine..but at what point?
Do they support a woman's right to kill her unborn child at say, 1 week
before her due date?
What they will do is claim that is illegal. What they will not do is
actually answer the question.
Why? Because then they have to explain why they would say no. That would
mean they support limitations on abortion, and that would put them in a
corner.
They support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy because of
the following reasons...
a) she can't afford to raise a child
b) she hasn't accomplished all her goals in life
or
c) she just doesn't want to be a mother
Now, when you turn it around and put the man in the position. They will
blame the man, saying it was his fault for not wearing a condom and he
should pay.
Very few will actually recognize the double standards we have in this
country when it comes to abortion.
If a man doesn't want to be a father for the same reasons I mentioned above,
he hasn't any choice. He either pays or goes to jail. Yet, they will
ignore this.
So that is an indicator that many of these people are not really interested
in "freedom" of choice at all. They are not actually interested in fairness
and equality. They are phoney.
There are no persons to be born today?
If there are persons to be born today then they would have been persons
before birth, because a person to be born signifies that they existed
before birth.
What is the difference in the fetus 1 day before birth and after?
Not much. So why don't they recognize a fetus as having the right to live
after a certain point in the pregnancy has passed?
Why do you ignore the being before birth, the person?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Your ignorance is what will defeat you.
They were defeated a long time ago. The are reduced to huddling in their
little corners now taking pot shots at people and name calling.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 01:35:33 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:35:56 -0500, "Osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id <NcSdnTsnuMVO8KXfRVn-jA@comcast.com>
wrote:
"Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com> wrote in message
news:%MZZd.32874$6g7.29947@bignews1.bellsouth.net...
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:v4lg3191foj1migvdlv16m0votu6khbd07@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
You mean there will be no more persons?
True, by legal definition a person is a person after birth. However, using
that as an argument with the issue of abortion, there are problems. The
issue of abortion, is a universal issue. The definition of person is not.
Now, by law in the U.S., you are not a "person" until birth. However, the
unborn child is still a human being.
No it is not.
This is the part many people in the
pro-choice camp have a hard time dealing with and are working feverously on
trying to distort the meanings of terms.
This is why terms are so important to many on the pro-choice side. They
can't allow the fetus to be viewed as a human being. They must fight this
and avoid it at all cost.
Another example is how they react to terms like "P.B.A."
Which is nothing more than a propaganda term used for it's emotional
impact on some people.
What is P.B.A.? Very simple, partial birth abortion What does it mean? It
means the unborn child is "partially" removed in order to end the life of
the child. They can NOT allow "birth" because then they could not legally
kill the child.
Yet you fail to mention this is very rare and is done for medical
reasons. It is still a legal procedure is it not?
Uh oh...I did it now..I said child. Well, doesn't matter because if you
look up the definition of child, it includes "fetus". Another thorn in
their side.
A word which has such a broad set of meanings as to be useless. If my
parents were alive I would still be their 'child' at age 65.
They will even go as far as arguing when a woman is a mother. Even though
the definition of mother includes a woman who is pregnant.
Yet the term has a varied set of definitions depending on context.
Parents Without Partners, a national social organization for single
parents, has being a parent as a membership requirement.
And to be a parent you must have a living child. Dead one's do not
count. If you have one child and are a member, if that one child dies
you are no longer eligible for membership.
Red flag terms that the pro-choice camp will fight on and get very upset
about.
Since there are so few facts they can use the anti-choice faction
deliberately seeks out and uses as many emotionally charged terms as
they can find. Rather than argue the facts and continue to be
ineffectual they now use propaganda and emotional knee jerk reactions.
pro-abortion - means nothing more than a person who favors and/or supports
legalized abortion
Yet you can't seem to come up with another term for someone who
advocates an abortion over birth, which is not the pro-choice
position.
life
human being
child
baby
infant
They will even go as far as comparing a human sperm to a human being.
No, some people try to come up with some convoluted definition of
human being that will include a fetus but those definitions will also
include a sperm and frequently a body part like a toe.
Yes a human sperm is living, it is a human organism. A human being though,
it is not. You can NOT have a human being with out conception, another red
flag word.
Your proof of this is what? You ignore the fact that human being is a
legal status and not determined by science or medicine.
Here is something most will get upset about.
They say that they support a woman's right to choose to terminate her
pregnancy.
O.k., fine..but at what point?
Whenever she likes.
Do they support a woman's right to kill her unborn child at say, 1 week
before her due date?
If it is medically safe.
You also ignore the fact that the intent of an abortion is to end a
pregnancy. Nothing more.
The result on the fetus or anything else is an irrelevant and
unimportant side effect.
What they will do is claim that is illegal. What they will not do is
actually answer the question.
But I just did. And I have done so before. To you. Why do you lie?
Why? Because then they have to explain why they would say no. That would
mean they support limitations on abortion, and that would put them in a
corner.
But I said YES. Now, and before.
They support a woman's right to choose to terminate a pregnancy because of
the following reasons...
a) she can't afford to raise a child
b) she hasn't accomplished all her goals in life
or
c) she just doesn't want to be a mother
No, there is no requirement to either explain or justify a choice made
under the freedom of choice.
I support the freedom of choice because this gives more freedom to
more individuals that not having the choice available. It has nothing
to do with any of the so-called 'reasons' you mentioned.
Now, when you turn it around and put the man in the position. They will
blame the man, saying it was his fault for not wearing a condom and he
should pay.
No payment is involved unless a child is born. Someone must support
that child and out society says that will be the parents. Like it or
not.
Very few will actually recognize the double standards we have in this
country when it comes to abortion.
But abortion has nothing o do with amy man paying. Two independent
issues which you try desperately to intermix.
You are wrong.
If a man doesn't want to be a father for the same reasons I mentioned above,
he hasn't any choice. He either pays or goes to jail. Yet, they will
ignore this.
Nope. He is not the one who is pregnant. His paying (if he does) is
to support the child - someone must do it.
So that is an indicator that many of these people are not really interested
in "freedom" of choice at all. They are not actually interested in fairness
and equality. They are phoney.
You are still mixing apples and oranges.
There are no persons to be born today?
If there are persons to be born today then they would have been persons
before birth, because a person to be born signifies that they existed
before birth.
What is the difference in the fetus 1 day before birth and after?
part of an article Bruce Forest posted
to this newsgroup in December of 1998:
cut here 8<===============================================
Birth involves far more immediate, dramatic physiological
change in the fetus than merely where the nutrients and
oxygen come from. These profound changes are a reason that I
consider birth to be an 'initiation' to air-breathing
'personhood.' For example you mention 'method of getting
nutrition and oxygen changes because of the change in
environment' Do you have any idea of the massive changes
necessary to accomplish this? Let me just address
circulation a bit, and leave the even more profound
respiratory and digestive changes for another time... I
think you'll regard birth as even more miraculous when you
understand what an amazing physiological event it is, and
what awesome changes happen at that moment!
At birth, two major events happen that radically alter fetal
hemodynamics; (1) ligation of the umbilical cord causes a
huge, though transient rise in arterial pressure, and (2) a
rise in plasma C02 and fall in blood P02 help to initiate
regular breathing.
With the first few breaths, the intrathoracic (internal
chest cavity) pressure remains low; after distension of the
airways, assuming sufficient surfactant, the pressure
quickly rises to that of an adult..(-7 to -8 mmHg). Pressure
in the pulmonary artery falls by 50%, but pressure in the
atrium immediately doubles or even triples.
In the fetus, the high resistance of the pulmonary bed (the
capillaries that exchange oxygen in the working lung) causes
most of the deoxygenated blood in the pulmonary artery to
rush into the descending aorta via a vessel present only in
the fetus called the ductus arteriosus. At birth, the first
expansion of the lungs forces all the blood in the right
ventricle into the pulmonary artery for the first time.
Furthermore, increased systemic arterial pressure actually
reverses the flow through the ductus arteriosus! Now,
neonatal blood flows from the high-pressure aorta to the low
pressure pulmonary artery.
The massive increase in the left arterial pressure would,
before birth, result in a fatal backflow of blood into the
right heart through the patent (open) foramen ovale. (An
oval opening in the atrial septum that we all have before
birth.) However, (and this is cool..) the anatomical
configuration of the foramen is such that a valvelike fold
in the left atrial wall automatically closes the foramen
(hopefully) on the first pulse of reversed blood. That
always amazes me.
The neonatal circulation changes at birth complete with
closure of the ductus arteriosus and foramen ovale, but some
minor adjustments continue for 1-2 months, until the adult
phase begins.
Fetal circulatory adaptions that disappear at birth....
Umbilical vein...Carries oxygenated blood from placenta to
fetus
Ductus venosus...Conducts about half the blood from the
umbilical vein directly to the inferior vena cava, thus
bypassing the liver
Foramen Ovale...Conveys large proportion of blood entering -
the right atrium from the inferior vena cava, through the
atrial septum and into the left atrium, thus bypassing the
lungs
Ductus Arteriosus...Conducts some blood from the pulmonary
artery to the aorta, thus bypassing the lungs
Umbilical arteries...Carry blood from the internal iliac
arteries to the placenta for reoxygenation
Immediately following birth, the umbilical vessels
constrict. The arteries close first, and if the umbilical
cord is not clamped or severed for a minute or so, blood
continues to flow from the placenta to the newborn through
the umbilical vein, adding to the newborn's blood volume.
The proximal portions of the umbilical arteries persist in
the adult as the superior vesical arteries that supply blood
to the urinary bladder. The more distal portions become
solid cords (lateral umbilical ligaments.) The umbilical
vein becomes the cordlike ligamentum teres that extends from
the umbilicus to the liver in an adult. Similarly, the
ductus venosus constricts shortly after birth and is
represented in the adult as a fibrous cord (ligamentum
venosum), which is superficially embedded in the wall of the
liver.
So, to summarize, the hemodynamics of the immediate newborn
and term fetus differ in these major ways, and many more
minor ones...ALL abruptly changing at the moment of birth:
(1) arterial and venous blood no longer mix in the atria;
(2)the vena cava now carries only deoxygenated blood into
the right atrium, where it goes into the right ventricle,
and then is pumped to the pulmonary arteries, and finally to
the pulmonary capillary bed , and ; (3) the aorta now
carries only oxygenated blood from the left heart via the
pulmonary veins for distribution to the rest of the body.
The 'pipework' is still mostly there, but what enormous
changes have taken place in a few short seconds!
So, I'd appreciate if we didn't say that the immediate
newborn and term fetus are almost identical, because they
just aren't. The digestive changes alone would be ten times
the length of this very basic circulatory primer, and the
respiratory chemistry changes at the instant of birth could
fill a book.
cut here 8<================================================
He listed as sources:
_Gray's Anatomy_ 15th Edition; 1995
_Human Anatomy and Physiology_, Second Edition, John W. Hole
jr. 1988 Wm C. Brown Co.
_Current Obstetric and Gynecologic Diagnosis and Treatment_
8th Ed, DeCherney, Pernoll 1994
Posted by Pat Winstanley <ng_wisy@yahoo.co.uk>
Not much. So why don't they recognize a fetus as having the right to live
after a certain point in the pregnancy has passed?
No one has a right to live.
Why do you ignore the being before birth, the person?
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Your ignorance is what will defeat you.
They were defeated a long time ago. The are reduced to huddling in their
little corners now taking pot shots at people and name calling.
Strange. I thought the freedom of choice was still legal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 03:44:03 PM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:v4lg3191foj1migvdlv16m0votu6khbd07@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
You mean there will be no more persons?
There are no persons to be born today?
If there are persons to be born today then they would have been persons
before birth, because a person to be born signifies that they existed before
birth.
A star is born = they weren't a star prior.
A person is born = they weren't a person prior.
Why do you ignore the being before birth, the person?
We don't. Before birth, we are very concerned with the well being of the
person. We hope she does well.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 01:13:03 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 12:17:06 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<%MZZd.32874$6g7.29947@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"Attila" <prochoice@here.now> wrote in message
news:v4lg3191foj1migvdlv16m0votu6khbd07@4ax.com...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<97WZd.36461$5T6.22192@bignews4.bellsouth.net> wrote:
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
All persons have been born alive.
You mean there will be no more persons?
As soon as there are more live births of the species Human there will
be more persons.
You are truly pathetic.
There are no persons to be born today?
Probably - persons are born every day just as people die every day.
But they are not a corpse before death any more than they are a person
before live birth.
Amphiboly
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Definition:
An amphiboly occurs when the construction of a sentence
allows it to have two different meanings.
Examples:
(i) Last night I shot a burglar in my pajamas.
(ii) The Oracle of Delphi told Croseus that if he pursued the
war he would destroy a mighty kingdom. (What the Oracle
did not mention was that the kingdom he destroyed would
be his own. Adapted from Heroditus, The Histories.)
(iii) Save soap and waste paper. (From Copi, p. 115)
If there are persons to be born today then they would have been persons
before birth, because a person to be born signifies that they existed before
birth.
No, not any more than an adult (having become 21 years old) was an
adult before they were 21 years old.
Why do you ignore the being before birth, the person?
There is a fetus, not a person, and no matter how may times you say it
you will not make it so.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by
repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by
saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat
something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the
first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again
and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to
substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good
reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that
the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any
public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna
tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em."
Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no
substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum
ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some
assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again.
The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of
what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our
opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong,
again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and
won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no
justification for their bald assertions!"
LOL!!!!!!!!!
Your ignorance is what will defeat you.
A third of a century and counting.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 08:38:07 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 08:53:50 AM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote, all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not a
person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
I choose to rely on knowledge rather than on excuses.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:01:53 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote, all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
You make no distinction between the words "human", "human being", and
"person", do you?
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not a
person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
It most certainly is true.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
No it doesn't. That question doesn't even warrant an answer. No person
has to explain their desire to undergo surgery to everyone else's
satisfaction.
You have no right to that information and quite the large set of balls
to demand it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:14:51 AM |
|
|
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:BTXZd.732$hg.722@news01.roc.ny...
Johnny wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change
of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other
such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its
very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic,
that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception.
That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote,
all the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists
at that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the
human male and human female gametes.
You make no distinction between the words "human", "human being", and
"person", do you?
All those words have their own meanings. Am I supposed to make that
distinction for you?
Human beings are persons.
Unborn persons are not given citizenship status. No problem since maternity
care is covered in insurance.
Once the individuals are spearated by birth there are two separate human
beings, persons.
There are two persons before birth, but while in utero they are cared for in
tandem.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is
not a person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
It most certainly is true.
Wrong, porno boy.
The fetus you sired that was aborted, is it a person now because you can not
see it?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the
question that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement
with the answer.
No it doesn't.
Why not?
You can't answer it or you are unwilling to comply with the answer?
Get a vasectomy if you don't want to abide by the answer.
And, stop acting like men who aren't utilizing abortion for their personal
benefit are supposed to bear your created burdens.
Grow up.
That question doesn't even warrant an answer.
Wrong.
You do not consider questions as worthy of being answered?
Maybe that is why your ignorance does not reflect the truth.
No person has to explain their desire to undergo surgery to everyone
else's satisfaction.
You sure?
You have no right to that information and quite the large set of balls to
demand it.
Demand?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:27:17 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
"Frank Dwyer" <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net> wrote in message
news:BTXZd.732$hg.722@news01.roc.ny...
Johnny wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change
of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other
such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its
very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic,
that a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception.
That, or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote,
all the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists
at that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the
human male and human female gametes.
You make no distinction between the words "human", "human being", and
"person", do you?
All those words have their own meanings. Am I supposed to make that
distinction for you?
Human beings are persons.
You've got that one backwards. It is possible for a human being to not
be a person. It isn't possible for a person to not be a human beings.
Unborn persons are not given citizenship status. No problem since maternity
care is covered in insurance.
Once the individuals are spearated by birth there are two separate human
beings, persons.
There are two persons before birth, but while in utero they are cared for in
tandem.
Two humans before birth, but only one person.
One human already born (a person), and one human not yet born (a fetus).
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is
not a person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
It most certainly is true.
Wrong, porno boy.
lol! Porno boy?
The fetus you sired that was aborted, is it a person now because you can not
see it?
It was never a person.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the
question that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement
with the answer.
No it doesn't.
Why not?
You can't answer it or you are unwilling to comply with the answer?
There is no "need" for it "to be answered".
Get a vasectomy if you don't want to abide by the answer.
And, stop acting like men who aren't utilizing abortion for their personal
benefit are supposed to bear your created burdens.
lmfao! I don't even come close to doing that.
Grow up.
Did that a long time ago.
That question doesn't even warrant an answer.
Wrong.
You do not consider questions as worthy of being answered?
It's a question that doesn't need to be answered. No one owes you an
explanation for why they wish to undergo a surgical procedure.
Maybe that is why your ignorance does not reflect the truth.
lol! My ignorance, he says.
No person has to explain their desire to undergo surgery to everyone
else's satisfaction.
You sure?
Absolutely.
You have no right to that information and quite the large set of balls to
demand it.
Demand?
Yes.
"the question that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement"
That's a demand for an answer, when it doesn't need to be answered at all.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 10:05:11 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:14:51 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<o_XZd.32026$6g7.5491@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
You make no distinction between the words "human", "human being", and
"person", do you?
All those words have their own meanings. Am I supposed to make that
distinction for you?
Human beings are persons.
OK.
Unborn persons are not given citizenship status. No problem since maternity
care is covered in insurance.
There are no unborn persons since being born alive is a requirement
for being a person.
Once the individuals are spearated by birth there are two separate human
beings, persons.
The second of which came into existence when born alive.
There are two persons before birth,
No, one person.
but while in utero they are cared for in
tandem.
Nope.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is
not a person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
It most certainly is true.
Wrong, porno boy.
The fetus you sired that was aborted, is it a person now because you can not
see it?
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
Seeing is irrelevant. Being born alive is very relevant.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the
question that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement
with the answer.
No it doesn't.
Why not?
You can't answer it or you are unwilling to comply with the answer?
Get a vasectomy if you don't want to abide by the answer.
And, stop acting like men who aren't utilizing abortion for their personal
benefit are supposed to bear your created burdens.
Grow up.
That question doesn't even warrant an answer.
Wrong.
You do not consider questions as worthy of being answered?
Maybe that is why your ignorance does not reflect the truth.
No person has to explain their desire to undergo surgery to everyone
else's satisfaction.
You sure?
Yes.
You have no right to that information and quite the large set of balls to
demand it.
Demand?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:55:42 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 15:01:53 GMT, Frank Dwyer <fdwyer@XcitlinkX.net>
in alt.abortion with message-id <BTXZd.732$hg.722@news01.roc.ny>
wrote:
You make no distinction between the words "human", "human being", and
"person", do you?
Of course not. His position depends on them all meaning exactly the
same thing.
The fact that he makes my toe a person is to be ignored.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:49:53 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:53:50 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<IGXZd.31799$6g7.6233@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote, all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
You are throwing around a lot of unrelated terms as if they are all
the same. They are not.
No person exists until after live birth since live birth is a
requirement to be a person.
Genetic code is irrelevant.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not a
person.
It isn't.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
It is very true.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
A fetus is not a child.
I choose to rely on knowledge rather than on excuses.
They try getting some for a change.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 08:58:32 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:53:50 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic, that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception. That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote, all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
If I read you right, any product of conception is a person. Is that
correct?
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not a
person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
Actually, thus far nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. I
see a lot of personal conviction proclaiming that the fetus is a
person but not a lot of legal backup for that thought.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
I choose to rely on knowledge rather than on excuses.
What knowledge do you rely on to provide a foundation for your
conviction that a fetus is legally a person?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Johnny" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:06:00 AM |
|
|
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110985105.2e7b207cde7d77830f5f54dfb740c68f@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:53:50 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change
of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other
such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its
very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic,
that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception.
That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote,
all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
If I read you right, any product of conception is a person. Is that
correct?
Yes, sir, or madame.
That is really the case.
It does not bother me to view it that way.
I am quite certain of it.
I do not see how there could be any other rational approach to determining
personhood being that all individuals within the human species seem to be
created that way now.
If you know of any other human that was created differently let me know.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Adam and Eve were created, correct?
Whether people believe that or not does not seem to make a difference in the
abortion arena.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not
a
person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
Actually, thus far nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. I
see a lot of personal conviction proclaiming that the fetus is a
person but not a lot of legal backup for that thought.
Ok. So, many are relying on what some others wrote.
I choose to rely on knowledge which can be verified much easier and not on
opinion.
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the
question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
I choose to rely on knowledge rather than on excuses.
What knowledge do you rely on to provide a foundation for your
conviction that a fetus is legally a person?
Truth.
What does law have to do with truth?
See?
If the law can not be proven to be true or is proven not to be the case at
hand, then we should change the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Frank Dwyer" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:14:37 AM |
|
|
Johnny wrote:
What does law have to do with truth?
It establishes societal truths, such as "personhood".
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Attila" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09:53:52 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 10:06:00 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
in alt.abortion with message-id
<5SXZd.31933$6g7.14834@bignews1.bellsouth.net> wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110985105.2e7b207cde7d77830f5f54dfb740c68f@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 09:53:50 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110983882.6567370428449797064f7ee68a739fa2@teranews...
On Wed, 16 Mar 2005 08:03:28 -0500, "Johnny" <wxpprofessional@msn.com>
wrote:
"IAAH" <iaah@dodgeit.com> wrote in message
news:1110947408.92bfb564d4ed4228369c17b573675430@teranews...
On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 22:55:45 -0500, "Mercury" <nobody@nospam.null>
wrote:
At birth?
Bzzzzt. Wrong.
There is nothing about birth that might endow a lump of flesh with all
the
rights and privileges of a human being. The process is only a change
of
location.
I've heard ridiculous arguments about the "first breath" and other
such
crap. It's all irrelevant. Nothing about birth could possibly turn a
non-person into a person.
So when is it a person? The *only* significant enough change in its
very
nature occurs at conception.
Anti-lifers, please demonstrate, with some kind of evidence/logic,
that
a
non-person becomes a person at some time *other* than conception.
That,
or
the anti-choicers win by default.
How about present-day fact?
A fetus is not a person. That's pretty much ubiquitous.
Not in fact.
You are wrong.
A fetus is a person.
Well, if you say so, perhaps you can prove what you say.
You think I'm wrong, so why not set me back to rights? A quick show of
proof that fetuses are actually people would suffice.
When a human female and a human male produce a conceived child, zygote,
all
the genetic code is already there and the new human individual exists at
that point with all elements of personhood already determined by the human
male and human female gametes.
Subsequent to the conception it grows until it it is either aborted,
miscarried, or born.
If I read you right, any product of conception is a person. Is that
correct?
Yes, sir, or madame.
That is really the case.
It does not bother me to view it that way.
Why do you think that how you 'view' something is all that is required
to define reality?
I am quite certain of it.
Wrong again I see.
I do not see how there could be any other rational approach to determining
personhood being that all individuals within the human species seem to be
created that way now.
There is a lot you don't see isn't there?
If you know of any other human that was created differently let me know.
LOL!!!!!!!!
Irrelevant.
Adam and Eve were created, correct?
Prove any such persons ever existed.
Whether people believe that or not does not seem to make a difference in the
abortion arena.
Maybe your porno friends and other wimps think that way.
I'm not sure what that has to do with the matter at hand. I've noticed
that relevancy is always in short supply on Usenet and people seem to
try to fill the lack with poor insults.
Well, whatever you may think of the statement, there are those in such a
classification which would adhere to your presentation that a fetus is not
a
person.
Saying a fetus is not a person is an excuse, and it is not true.
Actually, thus far nobody has been able to demonstrate otherwise. I
see a lot of personal conviction proclaiming that the fetus is a
person but not a lot of legal backup for that thought.
Ok. So, many are relying on what some others wrote.
I choose to rely on knowledge which can be verified much easier and not on
opinion.
When are you going to start using it?
Whether the conceived child should be aborted or not is really the
question
that needs to be answered such that everyone is in agreement with the
answer.
I choose to rely on knowledge rather than on excuses.
What knowledge do you rely on to provide a foundation for your
conviction that a fetus is legally a person?
Truth.
What does law have to do with truth?
Since the status of person is a legal status define by law and law
alone it would appear the law is fairly important here.
See?
If the law can not be proven to be true or is proven not to be the case at
hand, then we should change the law.
Why? It is fine as it stands.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "IAAH" |
|
| Title: Re: So when is it a human being? |
16 Mar 2005 09: | | | | | | | | |
