Abortion

[JoStories]

I'd have a lot of questions . . . absence of air in the lungs, often the bowels continue to function involuntarily, etc. I'm skeptical.

Oh heck, me too Marisa but my understanding is that they keep those issues in mind and air has no weight. The presence or absence of air in the lungs would increase volume not weight. And the measurement of bowel and bladder is easily accounted for. We do it in the ICU all the time with Chux. One places the Chux under the patient and when they soil it, we weigh the Chux, taking the actual weight of the pad into consideration. Therefore, we can estimate the output of feces and more importantly, the volume of urine. But believe me, I am highly skeptical. Still, its food for thought, non?

 

[Revoltingest]

I respect that. In fact, its a well reasoned and understandable position to take. I would never try to enforce my opinions or beliefs on anyone anymore than I would like them to force them on me. And like Marisa, I have had my own bad experiences. Like trying to find someone to do an abortion in the middle 60's, when it was more than difficult to find anyone and in fact, was still illegal in many places. Thankfully, my father would have never wanted me to carry his own father's child to term. SO I was very lucky. And yes, my pregnancy was by rape. and yes, its very emotional for me and many others.

You get credit for being so affected, & handling heated discussions with civility.

 

[Marisa]

Oh heck, me too Marisa but my understanding is that they keep those issues in mind and air has no weight. The presence or absence of air in the lungs would increase volume not weight. And the measurement of bowel and bladder is easily accounted for. We do it in the ICU all the time with Chux. One places the Chux under the patient and when they soil it, we weigh the Chux, taking the actual weight of the pad into consideration. Therefore, we can estimate the output of feces and more importantly, the volume of urine. But believe me, I am highly skeptical. Still, its food for thought, non?

For thought? No, not really, I've got bigger fish to fry. LOL But if medical science wants to discuss and comment on it, I'll definitely read their far more authoritative opinion than my own. LOL

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Reminds me of "21 Grams."

Good movie.

 

[Sundance]

He did prove his point using Stedman's. It clearly pointed out that a fetus is not an infant, child, etc. again, the difference is the ability to breath independently. I'm not sure anyone can make that more plain.

Actually, we were discussing the definitions of "fetus" and "baby", Mestemia correctly pointing out that I had incorrectly used the term "baby" to define a foetus. Though, a fetus, regardless of its ability to breathe independently, technically counts as a child (that is, in the general definition of the word), being defined essentially as "the unborn human child in its eighth week of development". Why do think that another way of saying that a woman is pregnant is that she's "with child"? You mustn't conflate the terms "fetus", "infant", and "baby". I made that mistake, so I know what I'm saying. In order to clear some of the confusion label-wise, allow me to offer an example involving religion, specifically Protestant Christianity:

Lets say that term "child" represents Protestant Christianity. Confusing your terms "fetus", "baby", and "infant" (and also saying that a fetus is not a child), is analogous to saying that a Baptist, a Pentecostal, a Methodist, and a Lutheran are the same, and that Baptists are not Protestants. How grave a mistake. The four categories have somewhat varying beliefs and vastly different modes of worship. Yet, each one counts as being Protestant.

 

[viole]

I'd call it a human life. Which is what matters, not whether it meets some magical threshold for "person" or "being".

I would not call it a human life either, since that was a picture of a 4-cells embryo of a hydromedusa (an invertebrate) .

The point is that, prima facie and without some biology experts around, it is not easy to see a basic difference. Unless we can attribute the "person" attribute to a bunch of cells without a nervous system, or to a strain of DNA.

Ciao

- viole

 

[columbus]

A baby is what is it called after birth.

I noticed that nobody called out HeathenDawny for intellectual dishonesty and lying when referring to their child as a capital B Baby.
Tom

 

[Mister Emu]

I would not call it a human life either, since that was a picture of a 4-cells embryo of a hydromedusa (an invertebrate)

Oh ho ho! You got me!

Unless we can attribute the "person" attribute to a bunch of cells without a nervous system, or to a strain of DNA.

A matter of preference, I guess, but I'm not having a metaphysical debate about ill-defined, unfounded, quasi-magical attributes.

 

[viole]

Oh ho ho! You got me!


A matter of preference, I guess, but I'm not having a metaphysical debate about ill-defined, unfounded, quasi-magical attributes.

What can I say, I agree...that I got you

Ciao

- viole

 

[Revoltingest]

I noticed that nobody called out HeathenDawny for intellectual dishonesty and lying when referring to their child as a capital B Baby.
Tom

Language often depends upon whether one is an ally or not.
Anyway, I see more overlap of the terms than do some posters.
My take on it.....
Infant - A baby which has been born
Baby - If it looks like a baby, it's a baby...which would apply to them before they're actually born. This is pretty common usage, even among us pro-abortion types.
Fetus - It's a bunch of cells which don't look like a baby, but would become one.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Good for you. I would fail you. Emotions have no part in a rational two sided debate.

I hope you at least tell your students before they begin debate prep that you require them to leave emotion out of their arguments, either wise you are failing them for being human... and real.

And we're skirting the issue here. I am capable of making a debate case while neither appealing to emotion nor being emotive, but if I've done a first class job, my audience, even the opposing debaters will feel emotion.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now try looking up the medical definition...

We are not discussing the politics, logic, facts and emotions of terminating dictionaries. Your lines of "debate" here belong on a legal forum. Isn't this religiousforums.com?

 

[Marisa]

We are not discussing the politics, logic, facts and emotions of terminating dictionaries. Your lines of "debate" here belong on a legal forum. Isn't this religiousforums.com?

And you expect your arguments to be considered among the educated? I'm sorry, but Mestemia is right, you want to be able twist and pinch the emotions of your adversaries but not to have yours twisted or pinched. Why don't we circumnavigate this pissing contest and rely on fact, rather than emotion? Nobody here in this conversation is devoid of feeling. It's just that some of us prefer to educate our feelings with facts, undoubtedly in an effort to reach the best possible conclusions. If you don't want to do that, go find a 5th grader to argue with.

 

[McBell]

If your emotions weren't getting in the way of your reading comprehension you wouldn't be making this mistake.
I did not specify you. But I was referring specifically to the last sentence of your post which I quoted.

Touche
My apologies.

 

[McBell]

I hope you at least tell your students before they begin debate prep that you require them to leave emotion out of their arguments, either wise you are failing them for being human... and real.

Cry baby much?

I am capable of making a debate case while neither appealing to emotion nor being emotive,

Really?
a mighty bold claim.
Care to prove it?

but if I've done a first class job, my audience, even the opposing debaters will feel emotion.

give it a try.

 

[McBell]

We are not discussing the politics, logic, facts and emotions of terminating dictionaries. Your lines of "debate" here belong on a legal forum. Isn't this religiousforums.com?

seems appropriate when talking about a medical procedure we use the proper medical definitions of the words we are using.

Unless, of course, you are merely making an appeal to emotion....

 

[JoStories]

You get credit for being so affected, & handling heated discussions with civility.

Thank you Revolting but I have to be honest and say that there have been times when I have been extremely heated and passionate about particular topics.

 

[JoStories]

For thought? No, not really, I've got bigger fish to fry. LOL But if medical science wants to discuss and comment on it, I'll definitely read their far more authoritative opinion than my own. LOL

I just love this stuff. I suppose it comes from my love of sci-fi and fantasy but the idea of these things fascinates me. Look at how many sci-fi/fantasy fictional notions have come to fruition. Big Brother for one.

 

[JoStories]

I hope you at least tell your students before they begin debate prep that you require them to leave emotion out of their arguments, either wise you are failing them for being human... and real.

And we're skirting the issue here. I am capable of making a debate case while neither appealing to emotion nor being emotive, but if I've done a first class job, my audience, even the opposing debaters will feel emotion.

There is a very significant difference betwen inspiring passion and emotion. One can sway a group to one particular side of the argument without the need for emotive precepts. Since this thread is about abortion, one side could easily sway a group by presenting well supported and peer reviewed opinions with passion but without the "emotive digs" that destroy the topic.

 

[Marisa]

I just love this stuff. I suppose it comes from my love of sci-fi and fantasy but the idea of these things fascinates me. Look at how many sci-fi/fantasy fictional notions have come to fruition. Big Brother for one.

Without doubt. Maybe it's a nurse thing, my mom was an RN for 4 decades, and sci fi was her passion, too.