Real Rape Victims Don't Get Pregnant

[Samuraikoku]

It can live with assistance, and does so. Once removed they stop living. That would be like me saying I'm not sitting because if the chair were taken out from under me I'd fall down.

What if the organism hosting it doesn't want to assist it? AKA, parasites.

[Nulono]

No, they're not "anti-choice". Opposing one option in one choice is not the same as opposing choice in general. Nor is it the same as hating women. The [sic] was because of the comma splice.

Seriously?

You want to take the decision away from women.

How is that not anti-choice?

So if I'm against men deciding to commit rape or beat their wives, is that also anti-choice?

Sorry. Women shouldn't have to die for Christian Morality.

Christians should only keep their moral systems to themselves and stop trying to make everybody else live by them.

The label of Pro-Life tends to be filled with hypocrisy. Many Pro-lifers support the death penalty and war in Muslim nations......

I'm not a Christian, Einstein. Nor do I support the death penalty or war in Muslim nations (or war period, for that matter). Thanks for the ad hominem attack, though.

*shrugs* The majority pro-lifers in the US are Christian.

So what?

Uh, not really. The fetus is a living member of the human species.

Ok. So when do we have trials for miscarriage?

When do we start having trials for crib death?

They have the potential. It's not guaranteed.

They have the potential to become older humans, as do you or I. The fact that someone may die in the near future does not negate their current humanity.

give me a definition for human life that does include fetuses but manages to excludes dead people, brain dead people and ovum/sperm.

Er. . . . "human life= fetuses and adults but not.." doesn't count.

Why do we have to exclude brain dead people?

[Nulono]

It can live with assistance, and does so. Once removed they stop living. That would be like me saying I'm not sitting because if the chair were taken out from under me I'd fall down.

What if the organism hosting it doesn't want to assist it? AKA, parasites.

Parasites are still alive. It's absurd to say that a parasite is only alive if it's in a willing host.

[Mail Jeevas]

Except it isn't. It's a ball of cells living off the host organism.

Like a tumour.

Um, abortions take place well past the "ball" stage, and the fetus is an organism composed of living cells, hence a living organism.

So by that definition a tumor is also a living organism? So that means every doctor that has performed surgery on a tumor to save another person's life should be jailed/killed because they took life away?

Your reasoning for fetuses being "human" is not sound and you have yet to back it up with science.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Um, abortions take place well past the "ball" stage, and the fetus is an organism composed of living cells, hence a living organism.

And a tumour is what? A collection of dead cells? Your biology teacher must have loved you!

[Nulono]

A tumor is not an organism, geniuses. Neither is a toe.

[Des-Bal]

A tumor is not an organism, geniuses. Neither is a toe.

Neither is a fetus.

[Samuraikoku]

Parasites are still alive. It's absurd to say that a parasite is only alive if it's in a willing host.

Should the host then continue to involuntarily assist this parasite?

[Mail Jeevas]

A tumor is not an organism, geniuses.

But by reasoning that a fetus is its own organism and not a (sometimes unwanted) extension of the woman's body, you're saying that other bundles of cells are also their own organisms.

[Nulono]

Parasites are still alive. It's absurd to say that a parasite is only alive if it's in a willing host.

Should the host then continue to involuntarily assist this parasite?

The mother should not kill the fetus, no.

A tumor is not an organism, geniuses.

But by reasoning that a fetus is its own organism and not a (sometimes unwanted) extension of the woman's body, you're saying that other bundles of cells are also their own organisms.

No, no I am not.

[The Black Forrest]

Seriously?

You want to take the decision away from women.

How is that not anti-choice?

So if I'm against men deciding to commit rape or beat their wives, is that also anti-choice?

I thought we talking about abortion and anti-choice.

Sorry. Women shouldn't have to die for Christian Morality.

Christians should only keep their moral systems to themselves and stop trying to make everybody else live by them.

The label of Pro-Life tends to be filled with hypocrisy. Many Pro-lifers support the death penalty and war in Muslim nations......

I'm not a Christian, Einstein. Nor do I support the death penalty or war in Muslim nations (or war period, for that matter). Thanks for the ad hominem attack, though.

*shrugs* The majority pro-lifers in the US are Christian.

So what?
[/quote]

You think you disqualified the comment?

Ok. So when do we have trials for miscarriage?

When do we start having trials for crib death?

They already do. Don't know if there were any convictions.

Coming back from your tangent. If a woman miscarries; how do you prove intentional and unintentional? After all, the law must step in when a fully functional human being is assumed to have been murdered....

[Samuraikoku]

The mother should not kill the fetus, no.

Why not? There is no obligation for an organism carrying a parasite to aid this parasite. The analogy is the same.

[Mail Jeevas]

But by reasoning that a fetus is its own organism and not a (sometimes unwanted) extension of the woman's body, you're saying that other bundles of cells are also their own organisms.

No, no I am not.

But that's just it -- you may not be intending to do so, but the definition you provided does.

If you want to argue that a fetus is a "life", sure go ahead. But give me a better definition.

[Khadgar]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

But by reasoning that a fetus is its own organism and not a (sometimes unwanted) extension of the woman's body, you're saying that other bundles of cells are also their own organisms.

No, no I am not.

yes you are...you are saying that a collection of cells making up an embryo is not the same as a collection of cells making up a tumour. One what basis of science or logic one can but wonder.

[The Black Forrest]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

Indeed. That is one of his favorite subjects so he should do that.

[Des-Bal]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

Abortion is central to the topic. The entire line about rape victims was being directed at abortion.

[DaWoad]

give me a definition for human life that does include fetuses but manages to excludes dead people, brain dead people and ovum/sperm.

Er. . . . "human life= fetuses and adults but not.." doesn't count.

Why do we have to exclude brain dead people?

because otherwise doctors have a duty to put every dead person on a heart/lung machine and wait until they decay and that would cripple the medical system.

[Nulono]

So if I'm against men deciding to commit rape or beat their wives, is that also anti-choice?

I thought we talking about abortion and anti-choice.

You said it was anti-choice to take a choice away from someone. Is it not anti-choice to tell someone not to rape, steal, or torture?

So what?

You think you disqualified the comment?

No, I think I asked what relevance the comment had.

When do we start having trials for crib death?

They already do. Don't know if there were any convictions.

For infants who just die in their sleep, with no suspicion of foul play? Source please?

Coming back from your tangent. If a woman miscarries; how do you prove intentional and unintentional? After all, the law must step in when a fully functional human being is assumed to have been murdered....

People aren't just assumed to have been murdered with no evidence.

The mother should not kill the fetus, no.

Why not? There is no obligation for an organism carrying a parasite to aid this parasite. The analogy is the same.

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

No, no I am not.

But that's just it -- you may not be intending to do so, but the definition you provided does.

If you want to argue that a fetus is a "life", sure go ahead. But give me a better definition.

Saying a fetus is an organism does not mean that all collections of cells are organisms. That would be like saying if a sapling is a tree, then any small bits of wood are trees.

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

What tangent?

No, no I am not.

yes you are...you are saying that a collection of cells making up an embryo is not the same as a collection of cells making up a tumour. One what basis of science or logic one can but wonder.

You honestly don't get the difference?

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

Abortion is central to the topic. The entire line about rape victims was being directed at abortion.

^ this

[The Archregimancy]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

Abortion is central to the topic. The entire line about rape victims was being directed at abortion.

Abortion is certainly germane to the topic, but not all topics relating to abortion are necessarily central to the topic. A detailed digression on whether a foetus is or isn't a parasite certainly isn't necessarily core to the topic.

So I'd be grateful if we could end what's evolving into a threadjack, or at least find a way of relating it directly to Akin's remarks if we have to pursue this line of discussion.

Thank you.

[Samuraikoku]

The mother has an obligation to not take the life of an innocent human being.

SCOTUS says otherwise.

BAZINGA!

[Nulono]

Why do we have to exclude brain dead people?

because otherwise doctors have a duty to put every dead person on a heart/lung machine and wait until they decay and that would cripple the medical system.

How about we also kill all sick people, to reduce the burden on our medical system? Your argument is based not on morality, but on what is best for the medical system.

[Konyun]

yes you are...you are saying that a collection of cells making up an embryo is not the same as a collection of cells making up a tumour. One what basis of science or logic one can but wonder.

You know, that might make an interesting argument....

"No you can't get chemotherapy, it might kill your tumor!"

"Um... that's kind of the point."

[Farnhamia]

You know, if ya'll would like to discuss abortion, again, you could make a thread for it rather than cluttering this one with an irrelevant and frankly tired tangent.

Truly.

Apparently the originator of the scientific principle that Congressman Akin was referring to is one Dr. John C. Willke, the founder and president of the International Right to Life Federation and president of the Life Issues Institute, as well as a former president of National Right to Life. As you'll see in the Wiki article, Mitt Romney's 2007 campaign embraced Willke as “an important surrogate for Governor Romney's pro-life and pro-family agenda”, and Romney expressed his pride to "have the support of a man who has meant so much to the pro-life movement in our country." That was when Mitt was against women's reproductive rights, after he was for them, except for the Mormon women he counselled.