Patrick Lee Humphrey <patrick@io.com> wrote:

elcoyote@netzero.net (Paul Anderson) writes:

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 01:57:27 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....

then you need a course in human biology.

Nope.
But it seems you do! ;-))

Actually, I just completed one yesterday; Human Biology 370, in which I
recieved an 'A'.

What school finished it's course in Human Biology 370 on Tuesday,
March 15th, 2005?

Maybe one on the quarter system, but I have no idea of which college systems
in California use that...

Depends upon the campus. SJ State is semester, Cal Poly is quarters,
UC Berkeley is semester, UC Santa Cruz is quarters.

In article <P01_d.5651$b_6.1602@trnddc01>,

"Pat Winstanley" <boredofspam2004@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.1ca2a396db1c7fd298c330@news.uni-berlin.de...

In article <xAZZd.6595$GI6.5183@trnddc05>,

Before a birth takes place a foetus uses the body of a person to do its
breathing, digestion, and all other metaboloic functions.

Not quite. All it's nutrition needs are taken care of by it's own blood
stream and heart;

Nope.

then you need a course in human biology.

Nope.

But it seems you do! ;-))

the only difference is that until his/her lungs can work, the
oxygen comes through mama's lungs. ....

In article <E0vZd.5373$b_6.4215@trnddc01>,

"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4236523d.3766525@news.la.sbcglobal.net...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:30:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<

the biologically determined line that makes it something completely
different from what it was a second earlier?

birth.

What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the expulsion
of
the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?

Prior to birth the fetus is a physical and biological part of the
pregnant woman. After the child is born it is physically and
biologically a separate organism maintaining it's own life by the use
of it's own organs. Pro-Lifers lie and claim that this is nothing
special, just a change of location.

And that's all it is. The only thing that changes is the level of dependence
the child has upon the mother.

No.

Before a birth takes place a foetus uses the body of a person to do its
breathing, digestion, and all other metaboloic functions. After the
foetus is separated from thebody of the person whose metabolism it has
been using, it has to use its own metabolism instead. Various physical
changes in the foetal body take place in its transformation at birth
into a baby - such as the blood supply to the lungs changing direction
so that the lungs can be used to provide oxygen transfer where before
they could not.

Once birth has conmpleted *any* competent person can provide the
external (but not the internal) functionality needed for the newborn.
Before birth the foetus depended upon a single person (the pregnant
person) for all its functional needs. The newborn needs to be able to
provide its own metabolism, wheras the foetus does not. Hence it can
happen that a birth produces a newborn that dies almost immediately
because it cannot provide its own metabolism, even though before the
separation the foetus had appeared normally developed.

Also, before birth there wasn't a mother to a foetus. After birth the
mother of the newborn may or may not be the person who had been
pregnant. And there may be no mother at all yet the newborn can still
survive perfectly well... for days if necessary ... without any
attention from any other person.

There is no child and no mother when the pregnancy is in progress.

So no
- there isn't a change in the dependency of a child on a mother at
birth. There is a creation of a child at birth,

and that child has a
dependency on any other person capable or providing for its needs...
whether or not one of those other people happen to be the child's legal
or biological mother.

And that's all it is. The only thing that changes is the level of dependence
the child has upon the mother.

"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4236523d.3766525@news.la.sbcglobal.net...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:30:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....

the biologically determined line that makes it something completely
different from what it was a second earlier?

birth.

What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the expulsion
of
the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?

Prior to birth the fetus is a physical and biological part of the
pregnant woman. After the child is born it is physically and
biologically a separate organism maintaining it's own life by the use
of it's own organs. Pro-Lifers lie and claim that this is nothing
special, just a change of location.

And that's all it is. The only thing that changes is the level of dependence
the child has upon the mother.

"Paul Anderson" <elcoyote@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:4236523d.3766525@news.la.sbcglobal.net...

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:30:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....

the biologically determined line that makes it something completely
different from what it was a second earlier?

birth.

What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the expulsion
of
the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?

Prior to birth the fetus is a physical and biological part of the
pregnant woman. After the child is born it is physically and
biologically a separate organism maintaining it's own life by the use
of it's own organs. Pro-Lifers lie and claim that this is nothing
special, just a change of location.

And that's all it is. The only thing that changes is the level of dependence
the child has upon the mother.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 00:30:41 GMT, "DianaC"
<dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote:
....

the biologically determined line that makes it something completely
different from what it was a second earlier?

birth.

What makes birth so special, when birth can come (that is, the expulsion of
the fetus from the mother's body) can come at any time?

Prior to birth the fetus is a physical and biological part of the
pregnant woman.

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.14.02.27.40.737756@nycap.rr.com...

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 00:55:13 +0000, DianaC wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96185FD77F935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:DEPYd.2040$uw6.1278@trnddc06:

<snip to>

Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and
she was taking a hammer to it?

certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against abortion
would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.

Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here.

that you said that convinces me there is no reason to discuss this issue
with you further.

i deleted the remainder of your post because your statement above is both
false and cluttered with issues not related to abortion but intended to
incite emotionally.

[...]

You should have read the rest of the post, where I backed up my statement;
where I mentioned that 'baby' is simply a term for the level of development
a human life goes through at a certain point. You know, fertilyzed egg,
blastocyst, fetus,

"james g. keegan jr." <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns96185FD77F935keegannycaprrcom@130.133.1.4...

"DianaC" <dianaiad@vernoyoudontizon.net> wrote in
news:DEPYd.2040$uw6.1278@trnddc06:

<snip to>

Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and
she was taking a hammer to it?

certainly. but only those with no legitimate argument against abortion
would misrepresent and claim a baby was involved.

Excuse me, but there IS a baby involved here.

"james g. keegan jr" <keegan@nycap.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.13.03.50.26.941705@nycap.rr.com...

On Sun, 13 Mar 2005 03:28:09 +0000, DianaC wrote:

"james g. keegan jr." <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1110665555.761732.51390@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...

in my opinion ...

those who would deny women their right to terminate a pegnancy at any
time during the pregnancy and for any reason think of women as nothing
more than breeding stock.

and, of course, the same mindset which could deny women this right
could use the same misogynist reasoning to force women to abort

i believe it was during the late 80s or early 90s when i first
expressed this opinion on usenet. i have never heard anything to cause
me to change my views.

Wow.

How...enlightening.

Never thought that a woman can prevent a pregnancy in the first place far
more easily than she can abort one, have you?

why would i do that? i believe women can make those decisions for
themselves. i suppose if i had a need to control women's behavior, i might
have considered it, but i don;t have that need.

Would you see a need to control it if the baby were in a stroller and she
was taking a hammer to it?

The problem is, once a woman is pregnant, whether you like it or not, or
whether SHE likes it or not, the physical reality is that there is now
at least one other human life at issue in any decision she makes; and
that, whether it's fair or not, is simply the way it is, just like it's
the 'way it is' that a man's genetic equipment is a wee bit more
vulnerable to blows than hers. Life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?

what is your point? sounds like you got forced to be in a situation you
hate and you want all others to face that same fate.

Now that's what I call a stretch. Actually, I have five children, wanted
every one of them, but when I called for prenatal care for the first THREE,
the first question the first thing I was told was 'we can arrange an
appointment to terminate the pregnancy in a couple of days, but if you want
pre-natal care, you need to wait three months'. This, while I was having
morning sickness severe enough to be hospitalized.

You can say that I have a jaundiced view of the way today's culture handles
things, yeah. But...not the view you think.

if a woman is pregnant, she has the right to terminate her pregnancy.

According to the law, yeah.

you may not like that. tough. life sometimes really sucks wind, y'know?

I don't like that, actually. But...until the women themselves see a problem
with it, abortions will still be used as a form of birth control. The
solution is to change minds.

the time to decide whether one should get pregnant is BEFORE one
participates in the act that starts the process.

this almost sounds like you want to punish women for having sex.

No, you idiot, I want them to use BIRTH CONTROL. You know, the pill.
Condoms. diaphragms. spermicides. All that stuff that is something like 98%
effective.

There is NO excuse for an unplanned pregnancy these days, none
whatsoever.

As in, absent rape, zero excuse.