Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Abortion [CLOSED - Run Its Course - Circular Discussion]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 allegiant_one
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 801
AbortionPage 33 of 35    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35)

Because it's the only real rational question here, and the answer given, that human life begins at conception, is not the one that was believed, even by the Church, for most of history.


Obviously soneone has questioned it, or we wouldn't have this exceptionally long thread. You aren't looking!


Yes I was....Anyway, because of the current constraints on my time , all I can do is refer you to msgs 672 and 674 where I addressed this from science and philosophy...not from the Church's view.
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 802
Abortion
Posted: 7/13/2008 2:53:33 PM
allegiant_one, I looked up your earlier answers. In many cases I agreed. Anyway, they seemed well thought out.

However, I do think you need to reconsider your answer that there is no dispute as to when life begins. A quick look at this thread alone shows differently. You obviously are free to have an opinion as when it is, and to feel strongly about it.

Regards
 sihtdaeruoynac
Joined: 6/16/2008
Msg: 803
Abortion
Posted: 7/13/2008 3:03:30 PM

Yes I was....Anyway, because of the current constraints on my time , all I can do is refer you to msgs 672 and 674 where I addressed this from science and philosophy...not from the Church's view.


Exactly bear is making assumptions again, typical. It's a bad habit I see.
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 804
Abortion
Posted: 7/13/2008 7:24:52 PM
sihtdaeruoynac, allegiant_one was kind enough to direct me to several posts of his in which he made sensible posts, some of which I agree with, and which I acknowledged. Politelty I think.

You, on the other hand have been consistently rude, and have not made any sensible posts that I can see. Feel free to point out any that disprove this, and I will retract that statement.

I usually try to be polite, even to those who disagree with me. However when I see that a person, such as yourself, goes out of their way to be rude, I think it fair to point that out.

Would you please specify what assumption you think I have made?
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 805
Abortion
Posted: 7/13/2008 8:22:00 PM
Bear and Trippy are here which I think is a good thing because if anyone can give a valid answer, perhaps they can. Be that as it may, I have some key questions which I have restated in many ways that have gone completely unaswered by anything other than misdirection and logical fallacy from the pro-choice end.

Read Beckwith's playground analogy in my last post and tell me why it is off the mark. Tell me if liberty is possible without life or why the uncertainty should fall on the choice end.

Trippy, you are assuming death is humane. It is an unreasonable assumption and one you cannot back up because you are alive. Once again, if the pro-choicers could really attest to the "better off dead" argument, they would not be here to argue it. They would be a suicide case. Lot's of people are addicts, poor, or depressed but they are alive nonetheless.

Bear, life cannot begin before conception because there is absolutely no capacity for it. That argument is illogical much like saying the room is on fire because there are matches in one corner and gasoline in another. It is not even logical to assume it will ever catch fire unless someone deliberately unites the two.

Conception is the first marker and the point at which the probability of life is non-zero. If we consider the principle of insufficient reason there is no reason to assume one over the other. Too bad the evidence is more suggestive of life than anything, so if the uncertainty fell anywhere, it would be on life. Check post 668.

Google Samuel Armas and then come back and tell me that life is not possible in the womb. He was 21 weeks old and showing lively response.

As for abortion being so rarely a matter of convenience, here is an except from a message board @ http://www.totalhealth.ivillage.com/risks-repeated-abortion.html:

How many abortions are considered safe? I have had five already and I think I am pregnant again. I feel I am not ready financially, emotionally and physically to have a baby. Can I physically afford to have one more abortion? My body is healthy and strong. Will I be able to have children in the future?

It does not disprove rarity, but I feel that is irrelevant. The point is, women do use abortion as birth control.

I cannot bring myself to honestly believe that any of you truly think life begins at birth in spite of crystal clear evidence. I find it strange that you all would deny empirical evidence here and promote it with with such ferocity in the God debates. Such a belief is a product of either deliberate exclusion, deliberate ignorance, or a dishonest claim. Whatever the case, it does not matter. The presence of life is not subject to belief. Either it is or it isn't with evidence supporting the former.
 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 806
Abortion
Posted: 7/14/2008 7:39:50 PM
altruist80, Thanks for your confidence. Worth mentioning, however, is that my personal position is not really strictly pro-choice, but somewhere in the middle.

As you suggested, I looked at your earlier post, and think you make a fine argument regarding the morality of abortions of a fetus that is already human. I agree, although some of the pro-choice camp may not.

Still to be examined is the case if the fetus is not human.

You are one of the first people to actually rationally address the question of when human life begins. I had raised the example of whether a separate sperm and egg where to be considered human not because I thought they were, but because I thought the boundaries ought to be questioned.


Bear, life cannot begin before conception because there is absolutely no capacity for it. That argument is illogical much like saying the room is on fire because there are matches in one corner and gasoline in another. It is not even logical to assume it will ever catch fire unless someone deliberately unites the two.

Conception is the first marker and the point at which the probability of life is non-zero. If we consider the principle of insufficient reason there is no reason to assume one over the other. Too bad the evidence is more suggestive of life than anything, so if the uncertainty fell anywhere, it would be on life.
In the example you have given, there is not a zero probability that a fire will start. When two people make love there is a finite chance. Let us say for the sake of this example 1/100.

Following conception, there is some doubt as well. 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. And unfortunatey there are other perils as well. So let us say the probability of it becoming a human is 0.6 A good bet, but certainly not a sure thing.

My own position, which ought to be taken as simply my opinion, is the same as traditional Jewish law and the position that the Church had until the late nineteenth century. Most people today are not aware that the current view that life begins at conception was not common earlier.


In the late nineteenth century, following the discovery of fertilization, the debate about abortion within the church tipped in favor of its now familiar position that human life begins at conception. This view was enhanced by the theological acceptance of the Immaculate Conception of Mary. In 1701 Pope Clement XI declared the Immaculate Conception a feast of universal obligation, and in 1854 Pius IX incorporated into Catholic dogma the teaching that Mary was without sin for the moment of her conception (Tribe 1990). These beliefs did not coincide with the prior view that the fetus did not acquire a soul until later in pregnancy, so the church had to unite its doctrine so that the act of conception coincided with the beginning of human life.
from http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=162 "When Does Human Life Begin?"

Personally, I think the pro-life movement is doing itself a disservice by shrilly crying "Abortion is Murder" and treating those who wish to approach the problem rationally and morally but who may not accept "life begins at conception".

Not everyone who dissents is immoral or a murderer.

And I'm still waiting for someone on the pro-life side to tell me what happens to those 1/3 of human souls that get spontaneously aborted.
 romanticoptimist
Joined: 10/1/2007
Msg: 807
Abortion
Posted: 7/14/2008 8:23:22 PM
altruism80. You make good cases, but this last post? You switch between "conception" (let's call in Day 1) and "birth (let's call it "Day 279"). There are many of us who do NOT support an abortion at Day 279, or even Day 180 or Day 90, but to equate Day 1 and Day 279 as equal in terms of whether the fetus has rights is as off-base as those who would describe a cell mass and try to equate it to a baby one day prior to birth.

Please make the case for a Day 1 "person" in need of protection (in my case you don't need to make a case for approx Day 30-40 onwards. I'm already convinced. But Day 1???)
Thanks.
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 808
Abortion
Posted: 7/15/2008 10:48:53 AM

It does not disprove rarity, but I feel that is irrelevant. The point is, women do use abortion as birth control.


Does it matter wether or not people miss use abortion? There is no such thing as a perfect system, all options open to us are abused by someone. In britain we have free health care, but people from outsider of the UK take advantage of this and waste resources set aside for us brits, but we can not stop them from doing so because it would prevent many brits from getting the care they need. Just because one part of a population missueses an system dose not meen that system should be withdrawn from everyone.

All you have provided in that post, is evidence that the abortion laws need to be tightened up to prevent grave missuse.


Google Samuel Armas and then come back and tell me that life is not possible in the womb. He was 21 weeks old and showing lively response.


My argument has always been that life can not be determined before the first signs of activity.

Just to make this clear, this is what you can expect from all normally developing fetuses: (sorry this is long but if we are going to talk about fetal development then we have to be exactlly clear on the stages.)

Weeks One through Four
Ovulation occurs.
Conception occurs.
Gender is determined
Implantation - Some spotting (also known as implantation bleeding) may occur about 10 - 14 days after conception.
Neural tube forms - It will develop into the nervous system (Brain, spinal cord, hair, and skin).
Heart and primitive circulatory system form in its beginning stages.

Week Five
First heartbeats begin.
Umbilical cord develops.
Blood is now pumping - All four heart chambers are now functioning.
Most other organs begin to develop - Embryonic lungs and brain start to appear.
Arm and leg buds appear.

Week Six
The arms and legs continue to develop.
Brain continues to grow.
Lenses of the eyes appear.
Nostrils are formed - The position of the nose seems to shift into its proper place as well. Soon, the nerves running from the nose to the brain appear.
Intestines grow - Initially these are actually located outside the embryo's body within the umbilical cord.
Pancreas - To deal with digestive enzymes and take on processing the insulin and glucagons the body needs to function.

Week Seven
Elbows form.
Fingers start to develop.
Feet start to appear with tiny notches for the toes.
Ears, eyes and nose start to appear.
Teeth begin to develop under the gums.

Week Eight
Cartilage and bones begin to form.
The tongue begins to develop
Intestines move out of the umbilical cord into the abdomen.
Body grows and makes room.
The fingers and toes have appeared but are webbed and short
Embryo length (crown to rump) is 0.61 inch (1.6cm) and weight is 0.04 ounce (1gm)

Week Nine
Embryo has begun movement - Still too small to feel.
Most joints are now formed.
Embryo will curve its fingers around an object placed in the palm of its hand.
Fingerprints are already evident in the skin
Average size this week -- length 0.9 inch (2.3cm), weight 0.07 ounce (2gm)

Week Ten
The embryo is now called a fetus in medical terms.
Eyelids fuse shut and irises begin to develop - Eye color is also determined by this point.
Placenta begins to function this week or next - The placenta is the organ responsible for both the provision of nutrients along with the removal of waste.
The fetus will be about 1.22 inch long (3.1cm) and weigh 0.14 ounce (4gm) at the end of this week

Week Eleven
Nearly all structures and organs are formed and beginning to function.
Fingers and toes have separated.
Hair and nails begin to grow
The genitals begin to take on the proper gender characteristics.
Amniotic fluid begins to accumulate as the kidneys begin to function - This fluid, consisting primarily of water, helps provide a cushion for the fetus.
The muscles in the intestinal walls begin to practice contractions that digest food.
The fetus is about 1.61 inches (4.1 cm) long and weighs 0.25 ounce (7gm).

Week Twelve
Vocal cords begin to form.
Ears shift to their normal place.
Intestines move farther in to the body.
Liver begins to function.
The pancreas begins to produce insulin.
The fetus is about length: 2.13 inches (5.4cm) and weight: 0.49 ounce (14gm)

Week Thirteen
The fetus is about 2.91 inches (7.4cm) and weighs around 0.81 ounce (23gm)
Eyes and ears continue to move and develop.
Neck is getting longer and the chin no longer rests on the chest.
Hands are becoming more functional.
At this point all nourishment is received from the placenta
On the next doctor visit there should be an audible heartbeat with a Doppler - If you can't hear the heartbeat, it can be confirmed through U/S.

Week Fourteen
Thyroid gland has matured and the fetus begins producing hormones which will be used throughout his or her life.
In boys, the testies develop.
In girls, the ovaries move from the abdomen to the pelvis.
Lanugo (very fine hair) covers the baby's body and will continue to grow until 26 weeks gestational age - Generally this will be shed prior to birth. Its purpose is to help protect skin while in the amniotic sack.
The fetus is 3.42 inches (8.7cm) long and weighs about 1.52 ounces (43 grams)

Week Fifteen
The mother may begin to feel some fluttering movements as the fetus moves - This is called quickening.
Legs have grown longer than the arms and the body is now longer than the head.
The three tiny bones in the middle ear have begun to harden - The auditory centers in the fetus's brain haven't developed yet.
Fingernails and toenails are growing.
Eyebrows are beginning to grow and the head hair is sprouting.
The fetus is an average of 3.98 inches (10.1cm) long and may weigh 2.47 ounces (70gm).

Week Sixteen
Fat begins to form underneath skin, providing your fetus with insulation for the coming months.
The fetus has reached 4.57 inches (11.6cm) and approximately 3.53 ounces (100gm).
Regular movements of the chest "inhaling and exhaling" small amounts of amniotic fluid - These actions help the lungs to develop and grow.

Week Seventeen
By week 17, the fetus weighs about 4.97 ounces (140gm) and is 5.12 inches (13cm) long.
Meconium (composed of products of cell loss, digestive secretion and swallowed amniotic fluid), is accumulating in the bowel. This black gooey substance will become the baby's first stool.
If the fetus is male the prostate begins to develop.
Skeleton is tranforming from cartilage to bone. The bones remain flexible to make the journey through the birth canal easier.

Week Eighteen
Vernix (a white cheese-like protective material) forms on the skin.
Alveoli begin to form in lungs.
Vocal chords are formed.
The fetus measures about 5.59 inches (14.2cm) this week and weighs about 6.7 ounces (190gm).

Week Nineteen
The fetus has the same sleep patterns of a newborn - It has a favorite position for sleep and recognizable active and rest periods.
Throughout the body, nerves are being coated with a fatty substance called myelin, which insulates the nerves so that impulses can flow smoothly.
Scalp hair becomes apparent this week. It has sprouted and continues to grow.
The milk teeth buds have already developed and over the next few days the buds for the permanent teeth will begin to form behind the milk teeth.
If fetus is female the uterus starts to develop. The vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes are in place.
If it's a boy, the genitals are distinct and recognizable.
The fetus is swallowing amniotic fluid and his or her kidneys are making urine.
The fetus's size is around 6.02 inches (15.3cm) and 8.47 ounces (240gm).

Week Twenty
The rapid growth stage is over. While things have slowed down, this next stage is vital to survival.
The fetus's heart grows stronger.
Immunities are being transferred from mother to fetus now.
The nerve cells for taste, smell, hearing, seeing, and touch are now developing in specialized areas of the brain. Production slows down as existing nerve cells grow larger and make more complex connections.
The fetus may startle in reaction to loud sounds - It can actually hear noises outside of the womb.
Fetus is about 6.46 inches (16.4cm) and weighs around 10.58 ounces (300g).

Week Twenty-One
Leukocytes (or white blood cells) are under production.
Length is now measured crown to heel.
Fetus measures about 10.51 inches (26.7cm) and weighs nearly 12.7 ounces (360g).

Week Twenty-Two
Eyelids and eyebrows are fully formed.
Fingernails have grown to the end of the fingers.
The fetus's brain has entered a stage of rapid growth, especially in what's called the germinal matrix. This structure deep in the middle of the brain serves as a kind of factory for brain cells and disappears shortly before birth.
If the fetus is male his testes begin their descent to the scrotum.
Primitive sperm have formed and he is producing testosterone.
Length is 10.94 inches (27.8cm); weight is nearly 1 pound (430gm).

Week Twenty-Three
Proportions of the body are now quite similar to a newborn although thinner since body fat hasn't begun to form.
Bones located in the middle ear harden.
The eyes are formed, though the iris still lacks pigmentation.
If born now, the fetus has a 15% chance of survival, the odds going up with each passing day.
The average fetus at this stage weighs 1.1 pound (501gm) and is 11.38 inches (28.9cm) long.

Week Twenty-Four
This week the fetus is officially considered viable.
Taste buds begin to form.
Little creases have appeared on the palms.
Over the next seven days the sweat glands will be forming in the skin.
Lungs are developing branches of the respiratory tree and cells that produce surfactant, a substance that helps the air sacs inflate easily.
Baby weighs 1.3 pound (600gm) and is 11.8 inches (30cm) long

There is no point in arguing from this point onwards as abortion laws only go up to the point at which the fetus becomes a viable life form.

This should help people to argue over the minutia of the exact point at which a fetus becomes a viable human being.

 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 809
Abortion
Posted: 7/15/2008 11:08:37 PM
Before skipping over most of this post, I challenge you to follow my reasoning so I need not re-address the issue later. I think this may cover a lot.


My argument has always been that life can not be determined before the first signs of activity.


Bingo. I draw upon yet another except, this one from Steve Wagner:

Imagine that you are at the sink washing dishes and your son comes up behind you and says, “Daddy (or mommy), can I kill this?” What is the first question you must ask in response? That’s right: “What is it?” If he says “it’s a black bug – I think they call it a roach,” you’ll have one answer – “fine here’s a hammer.” But if he says, “It’s the neighbor’s kitty,” you’ll say, “Whoa, hold on there.” See, you can’t answer the question, “Can I kill this?” unless you answer a prior question, “What is it?” Everyone in the abortion debate agrees that abortion kills something. But whether or not it’s right to kill any living thing depends on what it is (Wagner, 2006, section II.c.).

Since no one has answered the question, what gives us the right to kill it?



Just to make this clear, this is what you can expect from all normally developing fetuses: (sorry this is long but if we are going to talk about fetal development then we have to be exactlly clear on the stages.)


Et cetera with the explanation… It proves transition. You could also mark a point (considering your view of activity) between active and non-active. Then someone could say “Whoa, hold up. Just consider it inactive. “ But then what it if it is in between even that point at which it would be considered inactive? What can honestly answer these questions? I will tell you what cannot. Belief.



In the example you have given, there is not a zero probability that a fire will start. When two people make love there is a finite chance. Let us say for the sake of this example 1/100.


Ok, well we could consider it two vials of different pH on a chemists table. Reactions have transition time just like birth, but it is not even in question until the first drop hits the other liquid.


Following conception, there is some doubt as well. 1/3 of all pregnancies spontaneously abort. And unfortunatey there are other perils as well. So let us say the probability of it becoming a human is 0.6 A good bet, but certainly not a sure thing.


Those pregnancies which abort (and I am well-aware that nature aborts at a much higher rate than deliberate procedures) do so of nature’s (or God’s) accord. People die every day. You can read about it, take a picture of it, even let it happen… but take it upon yourself to make one die and they lock you up for life or execute you. They do so because there is a big difference between natural causes and deliberate action.



My own position, which ought to be taken as simply my opinion, is the same as traditional Jewish law and the position that the Church had until the late nineteenth century. Most people today are not aware that the current view that life begins at conception was not common earlier.


Was it ever brought into question? I do not understand why they would need to ask the question before the late nineteenth century. I’m not an expert on Jewish law by any means, but I do observe that the Nevi'im and the Ketuvim has many instances that declare “with child” to be solely a blessing. What exactly does traditional Jewish law say? I am curious.



Personally, I think the pro-life movement is doing itself a disservice by shrilly crying "Abortion is Murder" and treating those who wish to approach the problem rationally and morally but who may not accept "life begins at conception".


Without supporting evidence or proper argument, I whole-heartedly agree. There is a wealth of radical pro-lifers. I have heard stories of them throwing blood on people and all kind of other craziness, but in all honesty I do not see how the choice end can disprove the statement. It seems to be that the burden of proof should fall upon them much like a soldier would be questioned for lobbing mortars into the air without first setting his trajectory or checking the recon report. He could be hitting friendlies!



Not everyone who dissents is immoral or a murderer.


I agree. I never stated otherwise. I feel it is ignorance and emotion that makes such decisions, and not spite or coldness. However, I will say that it is based upon selfishness. Both ends of an argument may overlook something and they do so because they want to be right. They want others to take up their ideology and so sometimes they are blind to the evidence. Changing a belief requires demolishing all pre-conceptions or presenting something which undoubtedly overwhelms such pre-conceptions, and even in that case, some still remain stubborn. We all fall victim to belief, and I do not judge such individuals because I am often one of them. Still, if the world is round, it’s round. If the sun is hot, it’s hot. If abortion kills a human, it’s murder. I feel that until the firing range is positively clear of friendlies, we should not be lobbing mortars.



And I'm still waiting for someone on the pro-life side to tell me what happens to those 1/3 of human souls that get spontaneously aborted.


Once again, what can answer such questions? Maybe God recycles them, who knows. I do know that from reading my Christian Bible that he is none too happy to see a soul show up due to a broken commandment.



altruism80. You make good cases, but this last post? You switch between "conception" (let's call in Day 1) and "birth (let's call it "Day 279"). There are many of us who do NOT support an abortion at Day 279, or even Day 180 or Day 90, but to equate Day 1 and Day 279 as equal in terms of whether the fetus has rights is as off-base as those who would describe a cell mass and try to equate it to a baby one day prior to birth.


I probably worded it confusingly. What I meant was that life does not begin at birth, and such a statement is backed by empirical evidence.


Please make the case for a Day 1 "person" in need of protection (in my case you don't need to make a case for approx Day 30-40 onwards. I'm already convinced. But Day 1???)
Thanks.

This one is complex, so bear with me.

The case for day one falls to the principle of insufficient reason. What you or I believe about the day one fetus is irrelevant. It is unknown. We do see that at this stage the fetus has human parents and human DNA (unique DNA), which enough to suggest a non-zero probability. Knowing that life does not begin at birth, we must assign it somewhere. We also know that before conception there no capacity for individual human life. We are then faced with a transition slope starting at conception and ending shortly before birth. We could even go on the say that this transition starts at conception and ends at death, death being the peak of development. Wherever we place the peak marker is irrelevant.

Let us ask, is the fetus one day human at one day conception? How about 3 weeks sentient at 3 weeks conception? 20 years alive at 20 years old? No, no, and no. These are all absolute terms.

We must assign an absolute to a non-absolute probability. So how do we do that? We call it “undefined” because it is unknown. Now before you go off half-cocked about using such a method, consider that “analysis” is defined by the Oxford Companion to Philosophy as follows:
Analysis is the philosophical method, or set of methods, characteristic of much twentieth-century Anglophone philosophy, of the type which describes itself as ‘analytic’ to express allegiance to rigor and precision, science, logical techniques, and—perhaps most distinctively of all—careful investigation of language as the best means of investigating concepts (Honderich, 1995, p. 27).

Remember the “investigation of language” part because this very method is VERY widely used to get to the truth of something.

That being said, the fetus is just as undefined at day one as it is at day 279. The principle of insufficient reason states that if there is no reason to assign a high probability to something, given a number, N, of possibilities, the probability will be 1/N. Since we are dealing with absolutes here, the probability will be 1/2 for two possible outcomes. That leaves an unknown, or at best, 50% chance that the fetus is human. Now you and I both know that it is likely less than 50% as we define sentience, movement, etc…, but what about human??? How about alive??? Probably every bit as much as a comatose patient guaranteed (if all goes well) to wake up in 9 months.

How about Occam’s Razor? “Entities ought not be multiplied unnecessarily.” In other words, the simplest model is the preferred one. The simplest model here is simple. UNKNOWN. Unknown is all we have to work with without speculation. So if I hand you a revolver with a single bullet (absolute) and an unknown amount of chambers (non-absolute) (could be 6, could be 1000), would you put it to your head and pull the trigger? What about someone else’s head? Now what if you had a very good reason for doing so? No harm, no foul right? Let’s say there was harm. Let’s say the gun goes off. That would mean the VERY good reason you had for pulling the trigger now becomes the very good reason you need to justify the murder of an innocent person. That leaves but one conclusion. The reason must be good enough to murder an innocent. That is the only “assumption” that can be made safely without the entire equation falling apart. That is why I say the pro-choice argument is flawed. It requires speculation of unknowns which, if given any other outcome besides its own pre-chosen value (the death of something non-human), would render the whole thing invalid.

The short answer: We have no earthly idea if that one-day-old fetus is human. Refer to the “Daddy, can I kill this?” statement above.
 rockondon
Joined: 2/21/2007
Msg: 810
view profile
History
Abortion
Posted: 7/16/2008 12:08:15 AM

Since no one has answered the question, what gives us the right to kill it?
Its her body. Who are you to say what she would do with it? If a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, her foot, her arm, or any other part of her its none of your business. Do you like it when people wave the Torah or Quran and tell you how to live your life? No? Then stfu. You don't know their circumstances, you don't know what they're going through, and you don't have a right to impose your own moral opinions on others.

If your kid comes home from school with lice do you treat it? Yes? What gives you the right to kill them? Have you ever had crabs? I hope you let them flourish because life is sacred. I 'know that from reading my Christian Bible that he is none too happy to see all those crabs and lice souls show up due to a broken commandment.'

As for which day a baby is actually alive, here's the answer - who cares. Aside from you I mean.
 paddycake1213
Joined: 4/2/2008
Msg: 811
view profile
History
Abortion
Posted: 7/16/2008 12:12:15 AM
"I'm just stating this for the sake of argument, but in some f**ked up way wasn't Jesus the byproduct of a rape."

Are you kidding me!! That statement has got to be the most obscene sacreligious distortion of God's plan & word ever!! Shame on you!
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 812
Abortion
Posted: 7/16/2008 12:11:47 PM

Its her body. Who are you to say what she would do with it? If a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, her foot, her arm, or any other part of her its none of your business.


Welcome to the forums.

And if a woman kills her children? It's her house, her kids, her property, her hard work she put into raising them, her life which is impacted by them. So we have no reason to interfere right? We have no reason to consider human rights because it's "none of my buisness."


Do you like it when people wave the Torah or Quran and tell you how to live your life?


As a Christian, I believe in the Torah, so essentially I do like the input. As for the Quran, anything I have to offer on it would be opinion, so to answer your question in that regard, only if the words of the Quran made sense to me (which some of them do). I do not have to believe in Allah instead of YHWH to gain valuable insight from the authors of the Quran. Matter of fact, you might do well to consider that.


No? Then stfu.


Sorry, but no. These forums exist to express opinion and participate in logical debate. Check yourself.


You don't know their circumstances, you don't know what they're going through, and you don't have a right to impose your own moral opinions on others.


I don't know their circumstances or what they are going through, tis true. I'm an outside observer offering an objective approach to a human rights dilemma. We all impose our morals on others. Without such a condition, there would be no government, no society, and no order. In fact, you are doing it now.


kid comes home from school with lice do you treat it? Yes? What gives you the right to kill them? Have you ever had crabs? I hope you let them flourish because life is sacred.


Nonsense statement. I know what lice are. They are lice. Prove the fetus is a louse and you may actually accomplish something.


that from reading my Christian Bible that he is none too happy to see all those crabs and lice souls show up due to a broken commandment.'


Give me a passage where God said lice and crabs have souls. Some religions do feel
that all life is sacred, but all of them draw the line somewhere. Show me a religion where one cannot kill lice. Can't? Well, I can show you a religion where one cannot kill people.


As for which day a baby is actually alive, here's the answer - who cares. Aside from you I mean.


Taken from http://www.silobreaker.com/DocumentReader.aspx?Item=5_876655874

This is a 2008 poll.

A new poll reveals a majority of Americans take a pro-life position on abortion and that pro-life Americans outnumber pro-abortion Americans by a 16 percent margin.

Here is another from http://conservativethoughts.us/2007/05/15/cnn-falsifys-results-of-abortion-poll/ where they found CNN had actually hidden one set of polls:

UNITED STATES, May 15, 2007 - CNN covered up poll results showing a majority of respondents were pro-life, blogger Joel Johannesen accused in a posting on ProudToBeCanadian.ca.

CNN conducted the massive poll, released on May 9th, which covered wide-ranging issues with an anti-conservative bent. Question 43 addressed abortion, asking respondents, With respect to the abortion issue, would you consider yourself to be pro-choice or pro-life?

The largest percentage–50 percent–of respondents indicated they considered themselves to be pro-life, compared to 45 percent who said they considered themselves to be pro-choice.

Given 50% of Americans, I will assume that at least 152,308,101 people other than me care whether or not the baby is alive. Even many pro-choice people care whether or not the baby is alive. If not, that would be essentially saying one possesses no inclination to feel that a baby is worth anything.

There's the refutation, and now the commentary. Your post follows the pattern of so many before you which get written off by both sides of the argument for a clear display of disrespect and ignorance. Even those who share your opinion will likely tell you that you are accomplishing nothing by popping in and bashing the opposing side before you even know what is going on. As for a few of those comments, I would be careful on how you express your opinions.
 allegiant_one
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 813
Abortion
Posted: 7/17/2008 2:26:15 PM

Its her body. Who are you to say what she would do with it? If a woman wants to kill her unborn baby, her foot, her arm, or any other part of her its none of your business.


I have an interesting take on this one.

The Fact is, SCIENTIFICALLY, the Fetus is NOT “part” of the Woman’s BODY. This can be demonstrated that by implanting a “conceived” White Embryo, conceived in a test tube into the body of a Black woman. The Baby will still be born White. Thus we know, CONCLUSIVELY, that the fetus is NOT “part” of the Woman’s Body.

Another way of illustrating that the Fetus is NOT “part” of the Woman’s Body is this:

If a Pregnant Woman, is carrying a MALE child…(and you say, the Fetus is “part” of the Woman’s Body)…then that would mean she has a PENIS!…along with 4 eyes, 4 arms, and 4 legs.

 bear45408
Joined: 7/30/2007
Msg: 814
Abortion
Posted: 7/19/2008 6:03:48 PM
A recent Bush administration plan to define several widely used contraception methods as abortion appears to be somewhat scary to me. The proposals define abortion to include contraception such as birth control pills and intrauterine devices.
It would cut off federal funds to hospitals and states where medical providers are obligated to offer legal abortion and contraception to women.

Thus my hypothetical (and I thought silly) example of the protection of the rights of being human being extended to a separate sperm and egg become real.

In my opinion we are going way too far. Is it absolutely necessary to take the extreme positions on every subject? Frequently the right answer is not on either extreme, but somewhere more toward the middle.

But, not to be too serious:

If a Pregnant Woman, is carrying a MALE child…(and you say, the Fetus is “part” of the Woman’s Body)…then that would mean she has a PENIS!
Does she then say: Just what I wanted!
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 815
Abortion
Posted: 7/20/2008 8:56:56 AM

If a Pregnant Woman, is carrying a MALE child…(and you say, the Fetus is “part” of the Woman’s Body)…then that would mean she has a PENIS!…along with 4 eyes, 4 arms, and 4 legs.


It's funny because it's true!!!

Bear,

I just read a few press releases on that, and yes, that is absolutely going too far. There is no capacity for life before conception so I do not understand how some conservatives can think birth control is evil. That's ridiculus. Such a proposal would likely increase the number of abortions.
 designingwoman
Joined: 9/4/2005
Msg: 816
view profile
History
Abortion
Posted: 7/20/2008 9:45:12 AM
Altruist, I agree with you that outlawing contraceptives would increase the abortion rate. I agree also with the posters who support contraceptives and even emergency contraceptives after a rape, for example. It's one thing to abort a Day 1 cell mass but it's totally another to abort a viable baby.

Adoption should be heavily promoted by anyone who believes in a pro-life philosophy. Even pro choice folks would have no problem with promoting adoption. Adoption after all is another choice that is so often not considered when an unplanned pregnancy occurs. Adoption is "the caring option" and something that I will always strongly support. I fall somewhere between pro life and pro choice because there are circumstances such as rape or medical situations that may necessitate an abortion even though I am not a fan of abortions.

I think the energy wasted by pro life groups to support evil, dirtbag politicians who aren't genuinely pro life (supporting the death penalty while calling oneself pro life for example) should be redirected to promoting adoption and supporting legislation that facilitates the adoption process.
 allegiant_one
Joined: 6/3/2008
Msg: 817
Abortion
Posted: 7/20/2008 9:54:08 AM

I just read a few press releases on that, and yes, that is absolutely going too far. There is no capacity for life before conception so I do not understand how some conservatives can think birth control is evil. That's ridiculus. Such a proposal would likely increase the number of abortions.


Altruist80,

I agree. However, Birth Control Pills should not be confused with "Abortifacients" which actually cause abortions during the early stages of pregnancies. Ru-486 is an abortifacient that is widely suggested that its use "prevents" pregnancy, as Birth Control Pills, but these pills are actually abortifacients that terminate a pregnancy.

I did not read the mentioned article to make an intelligent observation, but "Quoted" articles in a forum like this can be easily misquoted and/or misinterpreted.
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 818
Abortion
Posted: 7/21/2008 6:05:59 AM

Since no one has answered the question, what gives us the right to kill it?


I would happily kill an insect eating my blood, but would never kill a****oach that just wandered by. Its far more complicated than just kill or do not kill.



As for which day a baby is actually alive, here's the answer - who cares. Aside from you I mean.


Aside from me? Well most of the people who go for an abortion do for a start. It is an extreamlly important question in the abortion debate for both sides. If you do not know when life starts then how can you know if abortion should be alowed or not?
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 819
Abortion
Posted: 7/23/2008 3:33:13 AM

I would happily kill an insect eating my blood, but would never kill a****oach that just wandered by. Its far more complicated than just kill or do not kill.


I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but I have heard the parasite comparison from other people so I will address it. I take issue with the whole parasite definition/ideology because it is not a sound biological comparison.

First off, a parasite is a foreign invader. When we are bit by mosquitoes our bodies trigger an immune response (swelling, histamine). Same thing with almost any foreign pathogen (antibodies, etc.). There are biological systems in place to fight such invasions. The parasite requires the host to live, but the host never displays signs of purposeful biological accommodation unless the parasite in question possesses a feature capable of overriding normal function such as cancer. As a matter of fact, the body actively fights every invasion of this sort, and even rejects transplanted organs as foreign. Some pass “under the radar” such as tapeworms, but we see zero evidence of the body actively accomodating tapeworms. A fetus is accommodated by the body due to clear and directed purpose. There is no fever, no fetus-destroying antibodies, no natural contraceptive functions.

Secondly, we do not produce parasites. No matter how much nutrition a parasite takes from the body, it will not become human.

Third, if we really want to examine things from a purely biological metaphysical perspective, sex is a useless function. It does nothing to help a human survive, and it’s not there for our jollies (scientifically speaking). It has one purpose in the grand Darwinian scheme of things—reproduction. That being said, sex without the intent of conception is not biologically “natural,” “normal,” or one of the great mysterious joys of life. The sex drive is there because [nature] requires that we care enough to breed. So… where does that leave unintentional pregnancy? It’s like lighting a firecracker in your hand for the joy of watching it smoke and fizz. Excluding cases of rape (which I have addressed), if we called the fetus a parasite, the prerequisite for being infested involves some VERY stupid behavior, and I don’t mean just a hike in the woods or a dip in the leach pond. I mean… if there were an instruction book called “How to Get Infested,” it would start off with “insert penis…”

The fetus does not hijack body function like a parasite or tumor does. It is fully dependent upon the purposeful accommodation of its PARENT (not host). We need only crack a high school biology book to know this.

As for it being more complicated than kill or not kill, I disagree. The issue of abortion is morally simple in my humble opinion for reasons I have already stated.
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 820
Abortion
Posted: 7/23/2008 9:40:14 AM
Hmm... I need to clarify. The sex argument was one from a strictly biological perspective, meaning that I personally think sex is a great thing (provided certain conditions are met), and I also support birth control (minus the abortifacients). Don't miss the point because of this. All too many times I have to argue from different perspectives (atheist, theist, scientific, ect.) to make sure I'm speaking to everyone.

The overall point is that pregnancy is not a freak occurance. It is the result of a process designed by nature (or God) for reproduction and I'm trying to point out the irony of it happening unintentionally.
 The Lone Haranguer
Joined: 3/23/2008
Msg: 821
Abortion
Posted: 7/23/2008 7:29:23 PM
Don't like abortion?

Then don't have one.

Next.
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 822
Abortion
Posted: 7/24/2008 6:50:08 AM

I’m not trying to put words into your mouth, but I have heard the parasite comparison from other people so I will address it.


Its not a comparison I was intending to make, but i can see how you could get that from my post.

I do have to disagrea with you on a points of the parasite comparison though.


but the host never displays signs of purposeful biological accommodation unless the parasite in question possesses a feature capable of overriding normal function such as cancer


Not true. Every person on the planet and infact every animal has a purposfull adaption to parasites. One of the main ones I could point to is the intestines. Without the bacteria in our intestines we would die, we have purposfully created an inviroment in our interstines that bacteria can thrive in. this is a purposfull adaptation to a parasitic organism.

Parasites are not always a bad thing. Deep sea angler fish for example, reproduce with the male becoming a parasite of the female. Parasites are simply any organism that is biogically (i,e' genetically) difrent from thier host, that live of the resources obtained by the host. Many parasites live a sybiotic relationship with thier host, such as the algae in coral reefs.


As a matter of fact, the body actively fights every invasion of this sort


Not always. Sometimes the body itself breaks down and stops fighting infections. Sometimes a parasite has a mechanism for switching of the imune response, but the majority of parasites that live on or in our bodies are ignored. Almost every person in the world has a type of mite that lives specifically in the folicles of the eyebrows, but the body dose not react to them in any way, and they do not deactivate the imune response.

It would be harfully for the body to react to EVERY parasite invasion, as some of those parasites are our guy bacteria, and there are so many parasites passing through our system at any given point that the imune response would be highlly active all the time. This would be a drain on our bodys resources and weaken us substantially, so the body needs to find a ballance. It mostly, only atacks parasitic organisms that do damage to cells. This is one of the reasons why cancers canbe hard to fight, because thebody dose not see any threat from them untill it is too late.

The imune system works in two main ways. It detects unusaul cell death and checks the protiens on cell membrain. In an unusual cell death, when the cell dies it releases all of thechemicals that should have been ussed up in its lifetime and the imune system detects this and responds. With cell protiens, the imune system randomly checks the surface of cells in the body for protiens of known parasitic cells and attacks them. This alows the imune sytem to ignore protiens that are from the hoost body, or from a parasite that dose no harm.


There is no fever, no fetus-destroying antibodies, no natural contraceptive functions.


Very wrong! The human body is fantastic at prevent pregnancy. Its a miracle we ever manage to reproduce at all. In 1989, a young British woman had her ninth consecutive miscarriage. Her marriage broke down shortly afterwards, but within months of finding a new partner, she had conceived again and the pregnancy went without a hitch. Her daughter is now a healthy and lively nine-year-old.

Reproductive immunologists found that the woman's immune system took offence at her first choice of partner – over-reacting to tissues carrying his genes and expelling the fetuses he fathered. Infertility, recurrent miscarriage, premature delivery and pre-eclampsia may all, in some cases, be linked to immunological abnormalities.

The womans imune system dose ocasionally detect the diffrent cell protiens of a fetus as being a foreign invader and destroys it. This imune response has been known to kick in at any point of the pregnancy, trigered by an invasion of a difrent parasite that has protiens similar enough to the fetus that the imune response mistakes it for another parasite.

The sperm cells are attacked by the imune response as well. The reasons we produce 40 to 300 million sperm cells is because the chances of even one of them getting through is slim. The womans body creates an enviroment that is deliberatly hostile to sperm,and then it send out waves of chemicals that atack the sperm cells. The woumb being naturally contraceptive is a way of insuring that only the healthiest sperm cell fertilises the egg. It takes an average of over a billion sperm to fertalise the egg (But be warned women, it is posable for a single sperm to manage the monumental feat on its own.) and even that dose not insure that implantation will ocour if the body dose not want it. The body often spontaneouslly aborts an implanted embryo because the mother dose not have the resources in her body to cary through with the pregnancy. (before anybody coments on this, there is a difrence between the resources the body has and the resources we have as people. Natural abortion beacuse the body can not actually make a baby and abortion because you can not aford one are very difrent issues.)

And fianally, no fever associated with pregnancy? You might want to talk to with some women about that first! Pregnancy can be very natural and even completelly unoticed by the expectant mother, or preganancy can be a b!tch!. Some women have such a dificult pregnancy it puts thier life in danger! Pre-eclampsia and Gestational diabeties are just the most comon of illnesses caused by the fetus and the body not interacting in harmony with each other. 70% of women get morning sickness and 3% of them get hyperemesis gravidarum, a potentially life threataning version of the pregnancy complication. Morning sickness itself is cause by hormonal imbalances braought about by the pregnancy. Proof that a fetus hijacks the bodys imune system can also be seen in the aproximatelly ten persent of pregnant women who stop having sever imune responses to dust and pollen (no more hayfever or asmtha for nine months!). It is already known that the fetus produces an antigen called HLA-G, released from the trophoblast into the mother's bloodstream, to protect the trophoblast from attack.


Secondly, we do not produce parasites. No matter how much nutrition a parasite takes from the body, it will not become human.


But we do produce inhumane parasites. Our bodies activily provide an ideal enviroment for bacteria to thrive in as many of them are esential for us to be abel to digest food. Did you know that there are more parasitic cells in the human body than there are human cells? (They have less biomass than the human body though as our cells are far bigger)


if there were an instruction book called “How to Get Infested,” it would start off with “insert penis…”


And what of the bacteria in breast milk and saliva? Just after pregnancy, the mothers body starts a proces of migrating bacteria through the digestive tract and into the mouth and breasts. This insures that the new baby gets a healthy dose of the bacteria esential for digestion. (It also makes the kiss of a new mother taste slightly sickly, but it will do you good!)

The body activelly promotes parasites that are helpfull or esential to the survival of life. Clearly this extends to sex and pregnancy as well, with the body activly promoting the reproduction of new life.


The fetus does not hijack body function like a parasite or tumor does.


Wrong again. It hijacks many of the bodys functions. The fetus releases hormones and other chemicals of its own, that are unique to fetal development. Most of them are still unquantified, but many of them have been shown to take controll of certain body functions of the expectant mother. One of these hormones can actually be fata to the mother as it can cause pre-eclampsia as a side efect of the fetus taking over the blood supply.


It is fully dependent upon the purposeful accommodation of its PARENT (not host).


The woman is not a parent by definition untill she gives birth. She is an expactant mother, not a mother. Having L plates dose not make you a driver, passing your test dose.


As for it being more complicated than kill or not kill, I disagree. The issue of abortion is morally simple in my humble opinion for reasons I have already stated.


And for the reasons I have stated it is not morally black and white. It is a case of personall perspective.

I would like to ask you what you think of the contraceptive pill. Becasue you define life as starting at conception, but many of the contraceptive pills avaliable preven the egg from implanting in the womb. There is no abortion caused because the embryo has never implanted.

So would you stop women ussing most types of contraceptive pill despte them being the only chemical method of contraception they can use because it prevents a fertalised embryo, which you consider to be life, from implanting?


--------------------------------------------------------

Personaly, as I have previouslly stated, I am pro-life and pro-choice. I will personaly always argue in favour of not having an abortion, but I will not streach so far as to strip away another persons right to make thier own judgment.

I always ere on the side of caution and as I am personaly unsure at what point you can call a fetus a new life, I will ere on it being at conception. that dose not give me the right to decide to make that judgment for other people though. If someone looks at the evidence and comes to a difrent conclusion then what right do I have to say they must belive what I say instead of what they have reasoned for themselves?

This is why when a friend of mine informend me she was going for an abortion, I did not judge her and fully supported her. I went along with her to the clinic and asked questions for her so she could make the most informed descion posable. fortunatlly she cancelled at litterally the last moment, on the table ready, the doctor asked her if she was certain and she said no, so it did not go ahead. But even if she had gone ahead with it, it was my place to support and love her, not to judge and condemn her for a very tricky moral choice.

I should also point out that I am not christian, or even religious. One dose not have to be religious to belive that "judge not" and "hate the sin, love the sinner" is a good way to live your life.
 altruist80
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 823
Abortion
Posted: 7/24/2008 9:33:41 PM

Not true. Every person on the planet and infact every animal has a purposfull adaption to parasites. One of the main ones I could point to is the intestines. Without the bacteria in our intestines we would die, we have purposfully created an inviroment in our interstines that bacteria can thrive in. this is a purposfull adaptation to a parasitic organism.


This is not parasitic in nature. This is symbiotic. There is a big difference.


Not always. Sometimes the body itself breaks down and stops fighting infections. Sometimes a parasite has a mechanism for switching of the imune response, but the majority of parasites that live on or in our bodies are ignored.


As I said, some slip in under the radar.


Reproductive immunologists found that the woman's immune system took offence at her first choice of partner – over-reacting to tissues carrying his genes and expelling the fetuses he fathered.


That is an interesting story. I did not conceive my first child until I quit smoking pot. I do not know if the weed itself was a sort of functional spermacide or if maybe the situation you describe was a natural defence against my doped up guys. In any case, what I can infer from what you have stated is that the body is selective about what it allows. You could also argue in this same line of reasoning that virii are accomodated by the body, but most generally accept that a virus is just really good at hijacking the cell.


But we do produce inhumane parasites. Our bodies activily provide an ideal enviroment for bacteria to thrive in as many of them are esential for us to be abel to digest food.


As I stated, this is symbiosis, not invasion.


And what of the bacteria in breast milk and saliva? ...... The body activelly promotes parasites that are helpfull or esential to the survival of life.


Again, this is symbiosis. They have even started putting live cultures in some infant formulas. If anything, the body is hijacking the bacteria for its own purpose in this case, making the body itself the offender.


Wrong again. It hijacks many of the bodys functions. The fetus releases hormones and other chemicals of its own, that are unique to fetal development. Most of them are still unquantified, but many of them have been shown to take controll of certain body functions of the expectant mother. One of these hormones can actually be fata to the mother as it can cause pre-eclampsia as a side efect of the fetus taking over the blood supply.


I have heard of this. I have also heard of incompatable RH which can be bad for both the mother and fetus. Philosophically, this could be another selection process, but I can conceed based upon this that the body may sometimes attack the fetus. I still fail to see how the fetus hijacks body function since we have germ cells for the express purpose of genetic assembly. To prove the fetus a parasite, you would have to consider the germs cells an accident or a fluke which we know is untrue.


The woman is not a parent by definition untill she gives birth. She is an expactant mother, not a mother. Having L plates dose not make you a driver, passing your test dose.


Semantics? I do it sometimes too, but I think you need a more concrete connection here. "Expectant mother" is a term we have coined to illustrate a condition. That condition is pregnancy but really implies nothing more. That is kind of like begging the question.


Personaly, as I have previouslly stated, I am pro-life and pro-choice.


But this is a black and white issue. Consider the meaning of the terms. I disagree with a lot of things people say but I still feel it is their right say them. That makes me "pro-free speech" and that does not change if I feel someone's words are wrong. If you truly believe abortion is murder and simultaneously support subjectivity on the issue, then you support the right for others to choose. This is pro-choice.

I have two more parasite issues:

- A fetus does not invade from an external environment. It begins its lifespan in the womb. Biologically, that would render it more of a cell/tissue than a parasite.

- A fetus has a symbiotic function -- genetic transference.
 Bright1Raziel
Joined: 8/20/2005
Msg: 824
Abortion
Posted: 7/25/2008 7:32:18 AM
I am just trying to explain without getting into emotional languge, that a fetus is termed on a parasite on the grounds that it meets all the requirements.

Parasites are esental to life. Mitochodria are parasites that nothing could survive without. Being a symbiot dose not prevent one from being a parasite. Its a case of all fords are cars, but not all cars are fords. All symbiots are parasites, but not all parasites are symbiots.

A parasite is simply any organism that lives of the resourses produced by an organism that is biologically difrent to it. This means that all symbiots are parasites as they live of off the resources of thier host, wether or not they give back something is irelevant.

It should also be pointed out that because of the extreamlly complex realationships between parasites and hosts, the definition of symbiot is in constant flux at present. For example, the algae in coral is considered to be a symbiot, but the coral activly triest to expunge the algae.

Now my problem with saying that a fetus is a parasite, is that its like saying a human is an ape. Yes we are apes, but that is only part of the story. The fetus is a parasite, but that is only part of the story. Its a symbiotic parasite, and even more specifically than that, it is a biotrophic endosymbiont. So simply saying parasite, dose not give an acurate picture. That is why I personally prefer to say that a fetus lives a symbiotic life with the mother, but it is still corect (but missleading due to people not understanding the nature of parasite/host relations) to say that a fetus is a parasite.
 PeaceLover61
Joined: 12/27/2005
Msg: 825
Abortion
Posted: 7/25/2008 1:21:10 PM

Now my problem with saying that a fetus is a parasite, is that its like saying a human is an ape. Yes we are apes, but that is only part of the story.


Speakin' for your self and your own ancestry I think. Lets see that would make a nice epitaph on your grave stone and notices in the funerary page of the local tabloid. hahah


A parasite is simply any organism that lives of the resourses produced by an organism that is biologically difrent to it.


So fruit produced by this definition is like totally screwed! I can't believe the arrogance and sheer oblivion to the higher electromagnetic fields and interdimensional networking which is necessary to sustain all biological (i.e., biomagnetic and biogravitational DNA) Life on earth, throughout successive generations known historically as 'forever and ever' or 'aeon to the aeons'. In other words, the power of re-genesis, the laws of which are not governed solely through bioelectrical and biochemical fields.

Show ALL Forums  > Religion  > Abortion [CLOSED - Run Its Course - Circular Discussion]