chris155au
Active member
It's VERY telling that you cannot even say if Roe v Wade goes far enough!I'm not answering anymore of these silly and unending questions. Just defend your position with your own reasoning and your own evidence.
It's VERY telling that you cannot even say if Roe v Wade goes far enough!I'm not answering anymore of these silly and unending questions. Just defend your position with your own reasoning and your own evidence.
You don't seem to understand that the life has unique DNA and that it's not just a part of her body like ACTUAL body parts which have her DNA!You are correct! No pro-choice advocate would ever say, that a growing embryo is NOT a part of the woman's body. BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE BLATANTLY LYING! Even identical twins do not have 100% identical genes(copy number variants). But they are still a part of the woman's body. Even if the woman had the embryo of an orangutan growing inside of her body, it would still be a part of her body. ANYTHING that is attached to, or attached within her body, is a part of her body.
What does the genetic makeup of a embryo/fetus have to do with where it is located? Anyway, NO GROWING FETUS'S DNA WILL MATCH ITS MOTHER'S. This is because its genetic makeup, is made from both the mother and the father. But none of this nonsense has anything to do with where the embryo/fetus is located. It is located inside the uterus(womb), which is an organ, that is a part of a woman's reproductive system. Therefore, IT IS PART OF A WOMAN'S BODY! If the embryo/fetus a not part of a woman's body, then what IS it a part of?? The Body of Christ?? Fanatics!
Just like a born kid is totally dependent on the woman.So does the embryo/fetus function independent of the woman? No, it is totally dependent on the woman's body physiology.
Totally and utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate!I'll bet dream rider has never done a thing to help all those kids who because of crappy upbringing turn to a life of drugs and crime, or turn to the streets. I'll bet he's the first to say 'they should get a job' and stop sponging.
I did answer the question about Roe vs Wade. But how exactly is my comment/non-comments very telling?It's VERY telling that you cannot even say if Roe v Wade goes far enough!
Did you know that the fertilized egg/embryo is an alien in the mothers body? Did you know that the mother's immune system would normally kill this alien? I won't bother asking you WHY this doesn't happen? Anything that didn't come with the original body, is treated as an invader. Why do you think transplant patients need immunosuppressants for life?You don't seem to understand that the life has unique DNA and that it's not just a part of her body like ACTUAL body parts which have her DNA!
Only because babies can't feed themselves, or pour themselves a glass of water. they are natures most helpless of all creatures. We all need the same basic sustenance for survival, except that a baby is not developed enough to get it himself! There are also many differences between a newborn, and a fetus still in the womb.Just like a born kid is totally dependent on the woman.
So, not pro-life afterall.Yep. Sure do! I can't wait to hear what comes next!
please don't tell me that you think babies can survive by themselvesCan a house build itself?![]()
no its not.Totally and utterly irrelevant to the abortion debate!
Babies in the womb?please don't tell me that you think babies can survive by themselves![]()
What have YOU done to help these kind of kids?I'll bet dream rider has never done a thing to help all those kids who because of crappy upbringing turn to a life of drugs and crime, or turn to the streets. I'll bet he's the first to say 'they should get a job' and stop sponging.
I'm not the one demanding others have kids that they don't want. You want them to have it, you look after the kids.What have YOU done to help these kind of kids?
Murderers have had their CHANCE at life. And they failed. They have TAKEN a life, and they could take another one. So yes, I am pro-life.So, not pro-life afterall.
I have no idea what you're saying.Did you know that the fertilized egg/embryo is an alien in the mothers body? Did you know that the mother's immune system would normally kill this alien?
Just like a born kid is totally dependent on the woman.
So then the fact that a fetus is dependent on the mother is not an argument against this:Only because babies can't feed themselves, or pour themselves a glass of water. they are natures most helpless of all creatures. We all need the same basic sustenance for survival, except that a baby is not developed enough to get it himself! There are also many differences between a newborn, and a fetus still in the womb.
Absolutely why a growing 100% LIVING HUMAN BABY within the womb is not part of the woman's body, it is not a functional part of that woman, if it were an actual part of the woman, the BABY's DNA would match the woman's DNA completely....match her like her kidney would.........or a finger.....or an eye.........match her DNA exactly........
I'm assuming that you don't think that Roe v Wade permits abortion after the point of viability, and that States which ban abortion after point of viability are not in fact violating Roe v Wade.Roe vs Wade only gives women the right to to CHOOSE to have an abortion without government interference. It doesn't force women to have one. Asking if it goes far enough makes no sense. Women have this right. That's as far as it goes!
No, you are not.Murderers have had their CHANCE at life. And they failed. They have TAKEN a life, and they could take another one. So yes, I am pro-life.
And therein lies the real problem. Maybe someone older than you can explain what I am saying? Perhaps an Highschool biology student?I have no idea what you're saying.
What argument are you talking about Chris? The newborn is totally dependent on its mother for it to survive. Not to live. It is already alive and viable. And, it has IT'S OWN PHYSIOLOGY to sustain its life. It is NOT a closed system, so it needs energy to sustain its life, the same as you. The only instinct that evolution has given this human rug crawler, to sustain its life, is the ability to suckle and grasp things. That's it. It is the most helpless of all newborn creatures. It is born with no skills to sustain its survival. And, that is why it is totally dependent on its mother(or other adults).So then the fact that a fetus is dependent on the mother is not an argument against this:
Please read Roe vs. Wade again. I am tired of repeating myself. You still clearly don't understand what this decision means or entails!!I'm assuming that you don't think that Roe v Wade permits abortion after the point of viability, and that States which ban abortion after point of viability are not in fact violating Roe v Wade.
So you are now saying that your value of a life is NOT based on its sanctity, but only on its due process? You are NOT pro-life!Murderers have had their CHANCE at life. And they failed. They have TAKEN a life, and they could take another one. So yes, I am pro-life.
You did not explain what you meant by "the mother's immune system would normally kill this alien." If you had a good explanation of what you are talking about, you would have already explained!And therein lies the real problem. Maybe someone older than you can explain what I am saying? Perhaps an Highschool biology student?
Yep, just like when they were unborn.The newborn is totally dependent on its mother for it to survive.
Yep, just like a post viability fetus. "Alive and viable" just like you said. I couldn't have summarised it better myself!It is already alive and viable. And, it has IT'S OWN PHYSIOLOGY to sustain its life. It is NOT a closed system, so it needs energy to sustain its life, the same as you.
Yes, what's your point?The only instinct that evolution has given this human rug crawler, to sustain its life, is the ability to suckle and grasp things. That's it. It is the most helpless of all newborn creatures. It is born with no skills to sustain its survival. And, that is why it is totally dependent on its mother(or other adults).
I understand that a kid needs their mother, regardless of whether they are born or unborn.In the womb, it is the MOTHER'S PHYSIOLOGY(not the fetus's) that sustains the fetus's life. NOT its survival outside of the womb!! Do you understand the difference between the two??
It means that after the point have viability, States can ban elective abortion and only abortion to save the life of the mother must be provided. Simple!Please read Roe vs. Wade again. I am tired of repeating myself. You still clearly don't understand what this decision means or entails!!
Sanctity:So you are now saying that your value of a life is NOT based on its sanctity, but only on its due process? You are NOT pro-life!
Do YOU?Do you support capital punishment?
Under no circumstances whatsoever do I support capital punishment.Do YOU?
We're done here!!You did not explain what you meant by "the mother's immune system would normally kill this alien." If you had a good explanation of what you are talking about, you would have already explained!
Yep, just like when they were unborn.
Yep, just like a post viability fetus. "Alive and viable" just like you said. I couldn't have summarised it better myself!
Yes, what's your point?
I understand that a kid needs their mother, regardless of whether they are born or unborn.
It means that after the point have viability, States can ban elective abortion and only abortion to save the life of the mother must be provided. Simple!
Sanctity:
the state or quality of being holy, sacred, or saintly.
A life which has sanctity should not be killed. There's nothing "holy, sacred, or saintly" about a piece of human waste who has murdered someone. It's perfectly okay to kill them. Try telling me that a child rapist/murderer has sanctity and should therefore not be killed.