This Epitomizes Why Abortion Is Wrong !

originally posted by: WarminIndy
So then do you become a parasite when you are too old to do those things by yourself?
Good to know that I am nearly a "useless bread eater" because I have MS and now in a wheelchair. Tell you what, instead of me becoming a parasite on society, you come and remove me from society and then you can have a bigger share of bread. ?

LOL!! Nice Try


Oxford Dictionary definition PARASITE
Parasite is an organism which lives in or on another organism
(the Host) and benefits by deriving nutrients.

I think that would cover an embryo/foetus - which is unable to breathe,
grow, or even exist without its host?


Does that define You?? I don't think so you can
# Breathe for yourself?
# Take sustenance?
# Think for yourself?
# Know your own needs?
# Can ask for help? ....we all need help sometimes

I wouldn't consider that being a parasite !! I think your being more than
a little dramatic!!

I just wanted to post a biological definition of parasite:

1. Biology An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.

Source

The fetus and the mother do not constitute a parasite and host respectively. The fetus is the same species as the mother and procreation contributes to the survival of the species.

I support a woman's right to abort a fetus in the first and second trimesters, but let's not start looking at human fetuses as a separate species.

I did a google search on 'is a fetus a parasite?' It gets hits.

a reply to: igor_ats

The right to usurp anothers bodily integrity against their will was what Roe was about. Having "equal rights" won't change that.

Baloney.

What the court said in Roe was that, while the state had a compelling interest in protecting the unborn, during the first trimester, abortion was "safer than allowing gestation to continue", so the state had to butt out and leave the decision of whether to abort the child to the woman and her doctor. Roe hinges on a claim to privacy, which is a stretch of epic proportions.

Combined with Doe v. Bolton, which defined "preferring the health of the mother" to be pretty much anything, the result was abortion on demand, including babies far beyond this arbitrary "16 week" period, up to and including murdering children after live births, as was seen in the case of Dr. Kermit Gosnell last year.

Under Roe/Doe, the unborn have no rights, invalidating the statement in the Declaration of Independence that they have inalienable rights, which the abortion industry gets around by saying that they are not alive, and thus not entitled to such protection.

Unless, of course, they are desired, in which case they are alive and entitled to those rights.

Roe v Wade wasn't about being a "burden on society".

Roe vs. Wade

Here is the ruling from the Supreme Court, and this is what MR. JUSTICE BLACKMUN delivered the opinion of the Court. Chief Justice Burger and Justices Douglas, Brennan, Stewart, Marshall and Powell

On the basis of elements such as these, appellant and some amici argue that the woman's right is absolute and that she is entitled to terminate her pregnancy at whatever time, in whatever way, and for whatever reason she alone chooses. With this we do not agree.

The FEDERAL law that allows for abortions under Roe vs. Wade, explicitly states that it disagrees with women being allowed to have an abortion just because she wants to have an abortion. So in essence, still breaking FEDERAL law because the ruling makes it clear that it should only be performed as a medical necessity.

… (a) For the stage prior to approximately the end of the first trimester, the abortion decision and its effectuation must be left to the medical judgment of the pregnant woman's attending physician.

(b) For the stage subsequent to approximately the end of the first trimester, the State, in promoting its interest in the health of the mother, may, if it chooses, regulate the abortion procedure in ways that are reasonably related to maternal health.

(c) For the stage subsequent to viability, the State in promoting its interest in the potentiality of human life may, if it chooses, regulate, and even proscribe, abortion except where it is necessary, in appropriate medical judgment, for the preservation of the life or health of the mother.

Left to the MEDICAL JUDGMENT of the physician.

MATERNAL HEALTH of the mother. Not all pregnancies pose a severe health risk.

The STATE may proscribe abortions in the STATE'S interest in the potentiality of human life.

And when it comes to the STATE'S INTEREST, then the STATE determines what is beneficial for society. The Supreme Court simply said that it cannot go against the Constitution, but it can and will override the individual states rights. When the Federal Court uses the word STATE, it means there are no longer individual states, there is now only THE STATE. And when THE STATE determines what is beneficial for society overriding your own individual city or county laws, then we have become nothing more than the USSR.

After your state loses it's right as an individual state, then it filters down to the individual person, who is now part of the collective STATE. In essence, Roe vs. Wade just stole your individuality and when the STATE chooses to control population, it will do so, regardless of your individual views.

Were Roe vs. Wade simply about a woman's individual right to privacy, then the words "STATE'S INTEREST" would not be used.

a reply to: adjensen

Roe hinges on a claim to privacy, which is a stretch of epic proportions.

Not as epic a stretch as trying to claim that a fertilized egg is a person that should be protected under the US Constitution.

fundamental right of single women and married persons to choose whether to have children is protected by the Ninth Amendment, through the Fourteenth Amendment.........

A. The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, [p157] for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument. [n51] On the other hand, the appellee conceded on reargument [n52] that no case could be cited that holds that a fetus is a person within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The Constitution does not define "person" in so many words. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment contains three references to "person." The first, in defining "citizens," speaks of "persons born or naturalized in the United States." The word also appears both in the Due Process Clause and in the Equal Protection Clause. "Person" is used in other places in the Constitution: in the listing of qualifications for Representatives and Senators, Art. I, § 2, cl. 2, and § 3, cl. 3; in the Apportionment Clause, Art. I, § 2, cl. 3; [n53] in the Migration and Importation provision, Art. I, § 9, cl. 1; in the Emolument Clause, Art. I, § 9, cl. 8; in the Electors provisions, Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, and the superseded cl. 3; in the provision outlining qualifications for the office of President, Art. II, § 1, cl. 5; in the Extradition provisions, Art. IV, § 2, cl. 2, and the superseded Fugitive Slave Clause 3; and in the Fifth, Twelfth, and Twenty-second Amendments, as well as in §§ 2 and 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in nearly all these instances, the use of the word is such that it has application only post-natally. None indicates, with any assurance, that it has any possible pre-natal application. [n54] [p158]

All this, together with our observation, supra, that, throughout the major portion of the 19th century, prevailing legal abortion practices were far freer than they are today, persuades us that the word "person," as used in the Fourteenth Amendment, does not include the unborn.
www.law.cornell.edu...-USSC_CR_0410_0113_ZO

Dr. Kermit Gosnell

I know that you guys love to trot out the Gosnell card! You need to understand that most late term abortions are due to severe fetal defects, like encephalitis, babies with no hope of a viable life destined to unbelievable pain until they die a languishing death of dehydration and starvation, alone. Late term abortion are not done because the mother has changed her mind. You should know better!

Many women who have late term abortions would rather that their fetus die feeling loved in their womb than be born into a world of pain. It's unfortunate that those abortions didn't take, and that the victims were born alive, but the alternative is more inhumane than the immediate killing of the new born, in my opinion.

Another woman discovered that one of her twins had died and that delivering the other would likely have killed her; another twice opted for a "partial birth" abortions after learning the babies had "no faces, with no way to eat or breathe," and would die almost immediately after birth. Andrew Sullivan has published a number of stories too.

These examples startled me because they didn't fit the stereotypes that either pro-life or pro-choice activists have offered about late-term abortions. Pro-life activists have tended to suggest that late abortions are matters of taste or convenience or, as Bill O'Reilly, put it "temporary depression."

On the contrary, most of the stories are from women who desperately wanted their babies but were faced with horrible dilemmas of whether to give birth to a child that would suffer and then die. Some of the abortions were, in effect, mercy killings
www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: Bone75

I know my stuff dude................

Sperm and eggs aren't humans, they are bi-products of humans.

LOL! You should stick with your faith and let scientists and doctors argue the biology.

by·product:
n.
1. Something produced in the making of something else.
2. A secondary result; a side effect.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: Bone75

I know my stuff dude................

Sperm and eggs aren't humans, they are bi-products of humans.

LOL! You should stick with your faith and let scientists and doctors argue the biology.

by·product:
n.
1. Something produced in the making of something else.
2. A secondary result; a side effect.

Yes, a baby is a by-product because it is a side effect of sex.

Here's the old "birds and the bees" discussion..."when a man and a woman love each other very much....".

OK, so it's not when it comes to gay sex, but that's another story. But yes, babies are the side effect of sex between men and women.

a reply to: WarminIndy

Sweat is a by product of sex. Gas is a side effect of eating beans.

Sperm and egg are there regardless of whether or not sex happens. Procreation isn't an accidental side effect, it's a deliberate biological mechanism needed for the survival of the species.

a reply to: windword

Evolution

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

Sweat is a by product of sex. Gas is a side effect of eating beans.

Sperm and egg are there regardless of whether or not sex happens. Procreation isn't an accidental side effect, it's a deliberate biological mechanism needed for the survival of the species.

Yeah, and sweat is also the by-product of an overly obese person exerting themselves simply by watching television. Take some beano and you won't have gas.

Yes, sperm and eggs are there, however there must be some reason for them to collide and then meld and fuse together. But let's look at it, each spermatazoa and egg already carry within them DNA, as do all cells, but these cells are specific in that neither one of them contribute to the body of the carrier. Hence, eggs die and are flushed away.

Without the act of sex or other means of manipulation (such as Petri dishes), then the eggs and sperm contribute nothing. However, once they fuse, the result is not simply a blob of cells, it triggers the development of a being that already carries at the molecular level all the information about the phenotype.

It has brain cells, heart cells, bone cells, everything it needs. Because it isn't developed into the phenotype of what we think humans look like, the genotype is still human. Regardless of phenotype, the genotype is not something else. Therefore, because the genotype is unmistakably human, it is a human, at the molecular level.

You are a human, genotypically, because at your molecular level in which DNA resides, determines that you are. And this happened at the moment of fusion. I am afraid you are basing what a human is solely at the phenotypical level.

gen·o·type
ˈjenəˌtīp,ˈjē-/Submit
nounBIOLOGY
1.
the genetic constitution of an individual organism.
verb

A blastocyst has the genetic constitution of human being.

The blastocyst is a structure formed in the early development of mammals. It possesses an inner cell mass (ICM) which subsequently forms the embryo. The outer layer of the blastocyst consists of cells collectively called the trophoblast.

DNA dictates it is human.

In humans, blastocyst formation begins about 5 days after fertilization

Five days, a human is developing, but it is a human already. Biologically, it is not something else.

The use of blastocysts in in-vitro fertilization (IVF) involves culturing a fertilized egg for five days before implanting it into the uterus. It can be a more viable method of fertility treatment than traditional IVF. The inner cell mass of blastocysts is also a source of embryonic stem cells.

Even at the level of blastocyst, there are present embryonic stem cells. Therefore, biologically, a fetus is a human and destruction of humans is called murder.

phe·no·type
ˈfēnəˌtīp/
nounBIOLOGY
1.
the set of observable characteristics of an individual resulting from the interaction of its genotype with the environment.

The environment of a fetus is within the womb and has observable characteristics. Those observable characteristics include movement, limbs of a human, heart beat and brain activity. The genotype is human and the phenotype is observed. Biologically, it is human.

a reply to: WarminIndy

When did I ever say that a fertilized egg isn't human? A human ova is also human. Male human sperm is also human. None of those things are people.

A fertilized egg isn't more human than sperm and/or egg.

Procreation isn't an accident, although we may perceive it be. Pregnancy isn't a side effect.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

When did I ever say that a fertilized egg isn't human? A human ova is also human. Male human sperm is also human. None of those things are people.

A fertilized egg isn't more human than sperm and/or egg.

Procreation isn't an accident, although we may perceive it be. Pregnancy isn't a side effect.

And the destruction of humans is still defined as murder.

US LAW CODE

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.
(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.
(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Look at section B, the legal definition of person includes induced abortion. If a baby has a beating heart, it is still regarded as a person. Breathing is not the only requirement.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You citation clearly indicates a requirement of being born.

originally posted by: windword

LOL! You should stick with your faith and let scientists and doctors argue the biology.

by·product:
n.
1. Something produced in the making of something else.
2. A secondary result; a side effect.

I'm sure he got the point, not everyone lets their terminology get in the way of their common sense. Besides we were speaking philosophically at that point anyway.

Explain to me how I was ever a sperm and an egg at the same time.

a reply to: WarminIndy



Your talking about literature written 100 years ago, It all sounds pretty
extreme, but then the world has become 'politically correct' and reworded
now it would not sound so extreme. Certain terms are no longer used

# Negro is now African/American
# Eskimo is now Inuit
# A cripple is now disabled
# An asylum is a Psychiatric Hospital
# A prostitute is a sex worker
# A dwarf is vertically challenged or a small person and so on . . . .

Both Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes were fervent in their pursuit of
helping women at a time when a woman's place was in the kitchen and
she had little choice but to produce offspring on an annual basis. (even
brood mares were better treated)

I for one am grateful to them for breaking through the 'male domination'
barrier and giving women 'a life'

Reading between the lines some of their plans are being practiced today
and with the new technology, Termination is being offered not
forced on prospective parents for inherited conditions and
abnormalities, so that 'families' can function without the added stress
of what will happen to my disabled adult child when I have died.
And of having families small and healthy enough to educate and contend
with!

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

You citation clearly indicates a requirement of being born.

Induced abortion does not indicate "being born" pursuant to the legal definition.

I am saying that according to the US code of human definition, breathing is not the only requirement, because of the word OR.

A child that has a beating heart legally is a human, and as Adjensen has argued, the philosophical definition is based in desire. As you choose to uphold the philosophical side to promote a legality, then you have to discard the biological definition.

Here is a list of Fetal Homicide Laws

In every one of these statutes, it has to now include abortion as a right, regardless of the legal definition of what a person is. That's what the Federal law states, and already we included the Supreme Court ruling on whether or not a woman can get an abortion any time she wants. The Supreme Court said no, that is not legal. The case was won simply by the majority who chose to say that it merely infringes upon privacy, which was never guaranteed in the Constitution.

You are making a philosophical case, not a legal one and certainly not a biological one.

a reply to: Bone75

Explain to me how I was ever a sperm and an egg at the same time.

Were you ever a star? Yet, we are said to be made of star dust. I ate a pork chop for dinner last night. I will digest it and metabolize it's nutrients which will in turn become new skin cells, blood cells, etc. You are what you eat, or are you?

I'm sure he got the point, not everyone lets their terminology get in the way of their common sense. Besides we were speaking philosophically at that point anyway.

Right. That's what I thought.

The question is "What is "YOU"?" Is "YOU" your body, or is "YOU" using your body as a vehicle?

The woman's egg, after ovulation, draws to it sperm. The egg is transformed, while the sperm dies. The transformed fertilized egg, after implantation, draws to itself nutrients need to continually build its transforming product. So, technically, the way I see it, you were first an egg, then "YOU" went through many transformational stages until you became "YOU".

So, is "YOU" the product of your ingredients or is "YOU" the user of the product?

I believe "YOU" is the user of the product and not the sum of the ingredients used to make your body.

a reply to: WarminIndy

I am saying that according to the US code of human definition, breathing is not the only requirement,

No, but being born is!

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

originally posted by: eletheia
a reply to: WarminIndy



Your talking about literature written 100 years ago, It all sounds pretty
extreme, but then the world has become 'politically correct' and reworded
now it would not sound so extreme. Certain terms are no longer used

# Negro is now African/American
# Eskimo is now Inuit
# A cripple is now disabled
# An asylum is a Psychiatric Hospital
# A prostitute is a sex worker
# A dwarf is vertically challenged or a small person and so on . . . .

Both Margaret Sanger and Marie Stopes were fervent in their pursuit of
helping women at a time when a woman's place was in the kitchen and
she had little choice but to produce offspring on an annual basis. (even
brood mares were better treated)

I for one am grateful to them for breaking through the 'male domination'
barrier and giving women 'a life'

Reading between the lines some of their plans are being practiced today
and with the new technology, Termination is being offered not
forced on prospective parents for inherited conditions and
abnormalities, so that 'families' can function without the added stress
of what will happen to my disabled adult child when I have died.
And of having families small and healthy enough to educate and contend
with!

Yeah..no.

Maragret Sanger's Eugenics policies are still in full force in many countries.

But let's see if Eugenics is still part of European medical practices, why yes it is..Eugenics and Law in Europe

The court said that the “wish” to have a healthy child “constitutes an aspect of their private and family life and comes under the protection of Article 8” of the European Convention on Human Rights. Therefore the law prohibiting PGD gives the applicants the status of “victims” and infringes their rights—which, for the ECHR, includes a “right to give birth to a child who does not suffer from the disease they are carriers of.”

The parents are "victims" of genetics, even though there could be no evidence that a child with any genetic defects would be born? Here is an idea, why doesn't she just have a hysterectomy if her fear is that great?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: WarminIndy

I am saying that according to the US code of human definition, breathing is not the only requirement,

No, but being born is!

(a) In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, the words “person”, “human being”, “child”, and “individual”, shall include every infant member of the species homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.

(b) As used in this section, the term “born alive”, with respect to a member of the species homo sapiens, means the complete expulsion or extraction from his or her mother of that member, at any stage of development, who after such expulsion or extraction breathes or has a beating heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles, regardless of whether the umbilical cord has been cut, and regardless of whether the expulsion or extraction occurs as a result of natural or induced labor, cesarean section, or induced abortion.

(c) Nothing in this section shall be construed to affirm, deny, expand, or contract any legal status or legal right applicable to any member of the species homo sapiens at any point prior to being “born alive” as defined in this section.

Again, you are making it a philosophical debate.

Extraction from the mother is usually what an abortion is, correct? Therefore a fetus with a beating heart that is extracted from the mother is a person, legally.