Politics.comforum

A fetus becomes a baby at the instant it breathes air on its own after being born alive.

While it is in the womb it's merely a preconscious mass of cellular matter that is the exclusive property of its host, the mother, and therefore exists -- or ceases to exist -- at her pleasure.

Remember: We measure the worth of a person by that person's s *history,* and a person's history begins with his/her birth. A human life's appearance and growth in the womb is irrelevant. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are worthless. A human being only becomes *significant life,* valuable and deserving of rights and protections at birth, and not a moment earlier.

Glad I could help.

• Reply

A "baby" that's composed of just two cells? Right.

Thanks for demonstrating -- so much better than I ever could -- just how crazy you really are.

• Reply

Dead? Alive? Growing? What the hell are you babbling about?

Fact: A preconscious conglomeration of cells that's utterly and completely dependent on its host for all the necessities of life is not a baby. Babies breathe on their own -- not through a tube.

What you are describing is a zygote, embryo or fetus, but it's not a baby.

• Reply

after its concieved. also, i believe it gets its first heartbeat after 8 days

• Reply

When "it" is taken off "life support" and can survive without "life support"....

Before that, opinions are like arss wholes...
We all got one.
Shotgun

• Reply

No...
The Mother is "life support"...
This argument is about abortion not "death panels"

C o m p a r t m e n t a l i z a t i o n

• Reply

when does the "fetus" become a "baby"?

after birth...
till then the mother is the only "life support"
KIND OF SUPPORT.

Shotgun

• Reply

picky, picky

• Reply

I will cut to the chase...
Absolutely no abortion unless there is a damn good reason. Like the Mothers life is at risk.

• Reply

>Absolutely no abortion unless there is
>a damn good reason.

That a woman doesn't want to be a mother IS a damn good reason.

>Like the Mothers life is at risk.

The life of a woman who's pregnant and doesn't want to be IS at risk. There's little that can ruin a woman's life as quickly and completely as undesired motherhood.

Every child born should be a much-wanted child. Any woman who finds herself pregnant against her will should get herself down to the nearest abortion clinic and flush it before two lives are destroyed.

Any unwillingly pregnant woman reading this should remember: That lump of cellular matter in your womb is not a baby -- it's a zygote or embryo. It's not conscious or viable and it's worthless. Don't let any religion-addled fool make you feel guilty about ridding yourself of it.

• Reply

Not good enough to justify the taking of human life. Inconvenience is not a justification for the taking of a human life.

Well, they should think of the ramifications before they go and procreate. If they don't want it they take steps to prevent the baby from being made. Not killing it afterwards.

Despite what he says that "lump of cellular matter" will become a baby. It will grow into a human being. It is irreplacable and therefore priceless. It's value is INFINITE, as that little "lump of cellular matter" could be the one to cure cancer, could be the one to find the next gasoline, could be the one to invent something as revolutionary as the Automobile. It's oppotunities are as endless as the good it could do.

And to you gowch, how you can talk of "ridding yourself" of human life? Do you hold human life that cheaply?

• Reply

>Inconvenience is not a justification for the
>taking of a human life.

Flushing an unformed, pre-conscious, non-viable lump of cells from a woman s body before it could possibly survive on its own is tantamount to "taking a human life" only in the minds of delusionaries and addled religio-romantics.

>Well, they should think of the ramifications before
>they go and procreate.

You apparently believe that unwanted pregnancy is just punishment for carelessness or promiscuity. Sane people do not. And you forget (or don t give a rat's ass) that your coldhearted attitude punishes not only the woman who must deal with the birth of a child she is not willing or able to care for, but also the child who comes into the world unwanted and unloved. Who but a monster would wish that on anyone? Abortion is a far, far better option.

>If they don't want it they take steps to prevent the baby
>from being made. Not killing it afterwards.

More dishonest propaganda. An abortion does not kill a "baby." It destroys a zygote, embryo or fetus. A baby is a human who's born alive.

>that "lump of cellular matter" will become a baby.

Not if it's aborted.

>It will grow into a human being.

Not if it's flushed out of the woman's body before it can do so.

>It is irreplacable (sic) and therefore priceless.

You think so? I take it, then, that you spend your weekends demonstrating against your government's drone attacks in Pakistan and bombing raids in Afghanistan that kill dozens of "irreplaceable and priceless" civilians every week. Or the greed of your country's pharmaceutical companies that have kept vital anti-AIDS drugs from millions of "irreplaceable and priceless" but infected Africans. Or the rapaciousness of the U.S. medical-insurance industry that keeps lifesaving procedures from millions of "irreplaceable and priceless" Americans, many of whom die as a result.

But you don't, do you? Of course not. That's because you value the lives of unformed, unaware lumps of human protoplasm more than you do real, actual, living persons.

The sad fact is that human life is actually quite cheap. We waste much of it every day without blinking. In that context, weeping over zygotes and embryos is insane.

>that little "lump of cellular matter" could be the one
>to cure cancer,

Or become a Catholic priest and spend his life molesting children.

>could be the one to find the next gasoline,

Or become a serial killer.

>could be the one to invent something as revolutionary
>as the Automobile.

Or create a Ponzi scheme that will defraud thousands of their life savings.

This argument of yours is childish and too stupid to contemplate. By that logic, we should outlaw masturbation, because every sperm cell that ends its life in a Kleenex could have become the next Einstein. It's a ridiculous argument that you should abandon before it makes you look even sillier than you do now.

>Do you hold human life that cheaply?

Persons are precious. Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are worthless and nothing is lost by their disposal.

[From next post]

>Human life is the most valuable thing on the face
>of the planet

You're dreaming. We squander human life with hardly a thought. Did you demonstrate against George W. Bush's needless war of choice against Iraq that killed thousands upon thousands of Iraqis? No? Why not? Aren't the lives of Iraqi civilians irreplaceable and priceless?

>and should be protected.

The lives of *persons* should be protected. The lives of pre-conscious clumps of cellular matter, not so much.

• Reply

>So your saying that around 3/4s of
>America is delusional?

Probably more.

>You are a sick twisted person

Sticks and stones, motherfucker. Sticks and stones.

>you ENCOURAGE women to get abortions.

Only those who find themselves unwillingly pregnant. I do not encourage unpregnant women to get abortions.

>Just because your an irresponsible @ss that does
>not want to take responsiblity for a child

Byte me, kid. I've taken responsibility for three of them -- the offspring I've produced.

>doesn't mean you should force your own twisted
>view on the nearest pregnant woman.

It's you assholes who want to ban abortion who are trying to force your views on the rest of us. All I'm doing is expressing an opinion. Got a problem with someone expressing an opinion, monkey-boy?

>If you don't you should not punish the baby for your mistake.

So we agree. You should get rid of the embryo or fetus before it becomes a baby.

>The great majority of docters (sic) will tell you
>that the baby is alive before it is born

Wrong -- it's a baby only AFTER it's born. It's *alive* while in the womb, but it's not a "baby." And BTW, kid -- try graduating from elementary school before you debate your betters. It's d-o-c-t-o-r-s. Not "docters."

>it is a baby. It is a little future human being

Not if it's vacuumed from the woman's womb while still a fetus and flushed down the clinic commode. Then it's future landfill.

>dozens of real civilians are not killed every week

Actually, they are -- as much as you would like to keep your moronic super-patriot head in the sand, Uncle Sam kills dozens of "real civilians" -- not al Qaida or Taliban -- every week in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and that includes women, children and old people. Ever heard the term collateral damage? If you do not know this, you are woefully ignorant and have no business engaging in a political discussion.

>You blame America for everything don't you?

No, just for the evil, brutal and stupid things it has done and still does.

>You really think companies should run
>themselves out of business

As I said, you obviously care more about the profits of U.S. corporations than you do about the fate of all the people who have died and will die because of those corporations' callousness and greed. But you weep copious crocodile tears over the destruction of formless lumps of cellular matter. This makes you more than simply a heartless hypocrite -- it makes you a Republican.

>Statistically there are more great inventors than
>serial killers.

Let's see those statistics. Or your admission that you're just a bullsh!t artist.

>sperm cells cannot make a baby on their own

A sperm cell is human and it's alive. Why is it OK to kill a sperm cell but not a zygote?

>had the left not Politicized the war and let Bush
>send in as many troops as needed
>it wouldn't have taken this long

It's truly astonising how little you know about the very recent history of your own country. Or perhaps you're just stupid. History lesson: Bush left the question of troop levels in Iraq to others. It was his secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, who insisted from the start that a relatively small number of troops could do the job. He was wrong. Bush fired him in November 2006 so he could take the advice of military experts who counselled that a "surge" in troop numbers was necessary. Your assertion that it was "the left" that was somehow responsible for the Bush/Rumsfeld display of incompetence exposes you as either a professional propagandist or, simply, an ignorant jackass.

>They will...BECOME...HUMAN...BEINGS.

Not if THEY...ARE...ABORTED.

• Reply