Thanks for your "$.02"
The picture is the size it is. I didn't size it larger or smaller. Look. Hands, feet, eyes, nose, ears. None of the tadpoles I ever had swimming in any of my buckets and cans as a kid had those.K-T7 said:
Do you mean inhumane? I don't think you have to put electrodes into the fetus or a brain of an adult to measure brain activity. Don't really know. Maybe it was done on one of the aborted fetuses. And the statement was brain waves which implies more than just the beginning of a brain; it implies that the brain is functioning at some level. The research was done by whoever did it. I am just repeating what I read. Check the link I posted earlier in this thread.
Some brain wave activity is a trait that Terri Schaivo still displayed up until her death, granted it was attributed to activity only within the stem as the cortex was fried but none the less the brain wave activity was still detectable, does this mean that she was truly starved to death?2ndAmendment said:
As to fetal brain activity it really depends upon the agenda of the person presenting the research as I too have seen reports stating that activity starts around month two and others that say that detectable patterns of similarity to a living person aren't detected until around the 7th month.
6 Weeks2ndAmendment said:
The embryo looks like a tadpole. It's the size of a BB pellet from crown to rump (crown-to-rump length is used because the baby's legs are usually not well developed yet and are bent and hard to measure).
fetal development at 6 weeks
Attachments
Yes my point exactly.......functioning at SOME level........maybe you should read other site's then anti-abortion site's.......I read your link and then some......but none of it had any info I didnt already no.....anti-abortion sites all say the same thing....try medical site's.....they are more un biased and medical.2ndAmendment said:
Vince
......
It really doesn't matter what you read, or what medical facts you come up with. The plain fact of it is that abortion is killing what would become a real person. Doesn't matter how you justify it. You're killing what would become a person. And who knows "who" you are killing. What if you're killing the person that would have found a cure for cancer or aids. I've ran this around in my head and asked myself if I knew before my son was born autistic, would I have aborted him? The answer comes back a big NO. You can what if yourself to death, but anyway you try to justify it, abortion is just plain murder.K-T7 said:
MMDad
Lem Putt
I'd like to correct one thing really quick here. Look up the definition of "murder" versus "homicide".
Abortion is always homocide. There is no way anybody can disagree with that. Abortion is not murder. Murder requires malice, as well as illegality.
Until the state makes abortion illegal, neither abortionists nor women who seek abortions are murderers. They may have commited homicide or consprired to commit homocide, but that is no different than any other legal homocide, i.e. self defense.
Abortion is always homocide. There is no way anybody can disagree with that. Abortion is not murder. Murder requires malice, as well as illegality.
Until the state makes abortion illegal, neither abortionists nor women who seek abortions are murderers. They may have commited homicide or consprired to commit homocide, but that is no different than any other legal homocide, i.e. self defense.
J
JPC, Sr.
Guest
Democrats Rock!
That poster quote wants us to fall into that nonsense concept that only if the gov calls it murder then it is murder, and if the gov does not call it murder then it is not murder.
Of course the gov does not call an abortion "homicide" either and neither does those brillient dictionaries.
For my perspective, I believe that all people need to think and decide for oneself.
Perhaps here on the Religion thread we could acknowledge that gov does not out rank God, so if God says thou shalt not murder and the gov says yes thou can then one of those two is wrong.
MMDad said:
That poster quote wants us to fall into that nonsense concept that only if the gov calls it murder then it is murder, and if the gov does not call it murder then it is not murder.Of course the gov does not call an abortion "homicide" either and neither does those brillient dictionaries.
For my perspective, I believe that all people need to think and decide for oneself.Perhaps here on the Religion thread we could acknowledge that gov does not out rank God, so if God says thou shalt not murder and the gov says yes thou can then one of those two is wrong.
I think that the person or persons that want to kill an unborn baby have malice (see definition #1). An abortion is the planned death of a human. Since it is premeditated, I think that qualifies as first degree murder.MMDad said:
Ask the Scott Peterson jury whether killing a fetus is murder or not.
Last edited:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
When I was a kid, I remember the picket lines at the grocery store, run by the women of the Catholic Church, that equated taking the pill to murder, by preventing a life, you are taking a life.. The pill is not murder, or so you haven't heard anyone from the Catholic church say that in the last 20 years, but now they have moved onto Abortion. the Silent Scream.. etc.. You don't want a woman to get an abortion, then carry your butt down to the clinic and offer to adopt the unborn..2ndAmendment said:
There are reasons a woman would resort to an abortion, and I would think it would be a heartwrenching if not moral decision that she will have to deal with the rest of her life.. I wouldn't want to trade places with ANY woman that had to make that decision..
itsbob
I bowl overhand
It doesn't equate to ANY crime, because it is LEGAL!!!!2ndAmendment said:
It is NOT murder, it is NOT homicide, it is not the equivalent to a parking ticket.. it is LEGAL. No matter what any church leader says, no matter what any nut case with a gun that is stalking abortion clinics says, it is LEGAL, and if a woman has to resort to an abortion I hope she can do it in a clean, sterile environment with proper care..
Abortion is kind of like gun ownership.. some think possessing a gun in your home makes you a criminal, but like abortion, owning and possessing a gun is still legal..
There are many, many couples available for adoption. Newborns up for adoption are at a great shortage.itsbob said:
I agree. Many women that have made the decision to abort have regretted that decision including the woman that was the subject of Roe v. Wade. Many suffer great emotional trauma.itsbob said:
Yes, it is legal since Roe v. Wade. Before that, it was a crime; at one point, murder.itsbob said:
I have said before that bad legal decisions, even though law by precedence (usurping of the legislative power by the judicial branch), are no excuse. It is against the law for me to own a M-16 that was manufactured after 1986. The law violates the 2nd Amendment since it is an "infringement" and the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". But it is the law.
If Roe v. Wade is overturned, abortion will again be a crime, murder, the premeditated taking of a human life.
But the fact that abortion is the premeditated killing of a human is not changed by the ruling. Only the legal consequences change. The moral implications remain no matter what the ruling.
MMDad
Lem Putt
That was my point. Right now, abortion is not murder, but it is undeniably homocide. It may or may not become murder again, but the morality will never change regardless of the legality.2ndAmendment said:
I really do wish that there would never again be an abortion, but I don't want the federal government to have anything to do with it. I just wish our society could mature to a point that nobody would want an abortion.
Bustem' Down
Give Peas a Chance
While I'm for abortion, I agree with you there. The federal government should not have anything to do with the subject, but more apropriatly, the AMA should make an ethical ruling on the matter, which they refuse to, more than likely because of how the subject has become so political.MMDad said:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
ANd when the 2nd Amendment was written they were talking about black powder.. muskets.... And as of today, you can STILL own all of those you want. So as to this day, nobody is infringing on the right that they spoke of.2ndAmendment said:
Nostradamus didn't give them any hints as to how weaponry would change over the course of history. NOBODY saw two hundred years ago, the possibility of a weapon that could shoot 1200 rounds a minute.. So spout off about infringement of gun owner rights, put the 2nd Amendment into context, and go buy all muzzleloaders you possibly can from Thompson Center Arms.
If you bother to read the history behind the reasoning for the Second Amendment, the founders wanted the general citizenry to have the same weapons as the military in order to be able to keep the government in check or to overthrow it if the need arises.Not only did private citizens have muskets, they had cannon (artillery) and war ships. But this is the wrong forum for this discussion.itsbob said:
itsbob
I bowl overhand
Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
WOW, some people can read a lot into two lines of text..
And don't get me wrong, I'd love to own an M-16A2, or a SA-80 or many other guns if I could.. but would I feel safe knowing others could too? Lot of mental cases out there, many on this board that I would not want to have these at their disposal. I feel safer knowing none of us can have an M2, then thinking about an anti-abortionist hell bent on killing anyone associatted with abortion having one.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
WOW, some people can read a lot into two lines of text..
And don't get me wrong, I'd love to own an M-16A2, or a SA-80 or many other guns if I could.. but would I feel safe knowing others could too? Lot of mental cases out there, many on this board that I would not want to have these at their disposal. I feel safer knowing none of us can have an M2, then thinking about an anti-abortionist hell bent on killing anyone associatted with abortion having one.
Last edited:
itsbob said:
And I'd really like to own a ma-duce.
And here, if you would like to read it, is a grammatical analysis and discussion on the Second Amendment.
http://www.grifent.com/docsLinks/docs/2ndEnglishLesson/SecondAmedEnglishLesson.html
The short version is, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is the independent portion of the sentence and can stand alone. The phrase "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," imposes no limitations.
Last edited: