 |
Me as a fetus.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Did you ever dare to ask? They were all emotionally secure, happy, empathetic, centered?Quote:
I was a principal and teacher for more than thirty years. I saw MANY kids go through that exact situation. Not a single one ever indicated they would rather be dead. Your conjecture is very sad.
all I can contribute is that I am very glad my birth mother didn't decide to abort me and I have no doubt the same could be said of every aborted fetus should they have been given the opportunity
They MAY be prochoice, not very high on my list of priorities for an elected official, but also promote the kind of governance that will uplift all of us and not just chill for the richest among us. One trick ponies don't get my vote, but I understand your position, it's just not mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You LIE! I've never written a thing about wanting to kill unwanted children or for that matter abandoning them after they are born, wanted or unwanted. Just the opposite, but am interested in knowing more about all that help pro lifers give to women that have their children.Quote:
I'm not demanding anything. I suggest that people get married prior to sex. That way when pregnancy happens, there are two people in the equation to help, but they are free to do as they please. If a single mom asks for help, she can get lots of it from the pro-lifers. She will get nothing but a bill from your pro-abortion buddies. I will never, ever, ever adopt your strategy of just killing those pesky, unwanted children.
Never been to such a clinic, and never taken a female for an abortion. I have no clue what you guys have in your small town, but our the women's health clinics I've been to do a full range of female health care, and that includes Planned Parenthood.Quote:
The place we go to is an abortion clinic. That's the business they do. If you ever trouble yourself to go look for yourself, you'll find out.
[QUOTE]I don't believe for one second that you've ever spent 5 minutes at an abortion clinic speaking with protestors and the women going in.[QUOTE]
LOL, doesn't matter what you believe but I have seen what protestors outside our PP clinic is about, mostly raving lunatics, escorted a few women through those lunatics, never for an abortion. I know many pro life advocates, most fairly good people and level headed but weren't just one issue people either. I know some that have terminated pregnancies after having kids already. It's been my experience that pro choicers, like pro lifers have a wide range of feelings on this abortion subject and it's not just a one size fits all opinion.
You might still be doing the activist thing my friend, but I admit to being less physically active for a cause as I once was. I won't lie as I was possibly as big a self righteous a$$hole as you still are. Maybe still am, but I find discussing is a better option since I've already been there and done that activist thing, and not just for the abortion cause. As far as abortions go, I've never advocated for them, but do advise the counsel of a doctor when pregnancy is suspected and the rest is between them and that doctor.Quote:
Says the man who's too busy typing on a message board to get off his rear end and go do as I've suggested. Just a lot easier to cast accusations at people who spend their time trying to save the lives that you seem to care nothing at all about.
Never have I been asked whether or not a person should have an abortion.
The fertilized egg is flushed out during menstruation. If you had looked up "menstruation" like I suggested, you would know that.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I appealed to the Book of Genesis in the Bible. If my logic made no sense, it's not enough for you to just say so. You need to show why it made no sense.Quote:
You can't appeal to Adam. Your logic made no sense.
I don't why you are dismayed, the issue of viability was brought up earlier. But even so, why the dismay? And why do you say that I proceeded to "toss it out"? By seeming to miss so many obvious points, often in sarcastic language, you make it very difficult to remain civil and continue with whatever is being discussed.Quote:
I do appreciate you answering the question. I am dismayed that you brought up the issue of viability and then proceeded to toss it out, but at least you did answer the question.
No. You merely vote for and vigorously campaign for those who will continue to allow that very thing to happen, and then act like you have no participation in it. Sorry, but I'm calling you out on that one.Quote:
You LIE! I've never written a thing about wanting to kill unwanted children or for that matter abandoning them after they are born, wanted or unwanted
If you've been to a PP clinic, you've been to an abortion clinic.Quote:
Never been to such a clinic,
You are in favor of abortion when you vote for those in favor of abortion.
Athos, your issue wasn't what happened to the fertilized egg which does not implant. That happens. The issue I raised was that the woman would not be aware of it. She is not.
You say the zygote cannot be made in God's image since that first occurred with Adam, and he was formed fully as an adult. The failure in logic comes in trying to determine where this "image" is imprinted. 3 month fetus? 8 month fetus? 2 year old child? 10 year old child? If not the zygote, then why not? Why are you making that arbitrary decision for the zygote but not for the 2 year old?
You very plainly tossed it out when you said you did not use viability as a standard. You brought up the issue of viability, not me. To say, as you do, that aborting a 24 week fetus is OK when you also acknowledge that the child could live outside the womb is what dismayed me. And please don't complain about sarcasm and civility. You have one of the most biting keyboards on this board. I would suggest you work on your own civility, although to be fair I will say it has been some better lately.
Your characterization that PP or any women's health clinic is exclusively or mostly about just abortions is just old right wing pro-life propaganda. You still have not articulated all that help and services you provide to needy women and children that dems/liberals do not.
I didn't say that, so you're making it up again. I said that when you go to a PP clinic, you are going to an abortion clinic. Abortions are routinely performed there. Yes, they do other things, but they are still a clinic that does MANY abortionsQuote:
Your characterization that PP or any women's health clinic is exclusively or mostly about just abortions
You surely have implied that's all they do when in fact abortions are a very small part of the total services PP for example provides. What of the VAST majority of other services they provide and how do you tell if a woman is going for an abortion or those other services?
Nope. Never have. You're making it up again. But no matter what else they do, they kill about 300,000 unborn children a year. You are fine with that. I am not. End of story.Quote:
You surely have implied that's all they do
If that's your version, you're welcome to it.
That's not my version. It's how it is. It you can refute it, then go for it, but the silly, meaningless comments accomplish nothing.
Must not be enough people buying into your version of the way things are to make changes. Dontcha hate when that happens?
That's not how truth is determined. In fact, liberal dems are proving that people will flock to the person promising the most give aways.Quote:
Must not be enough people buying into your version of the way things are to make changes.
You flocked to the dufus because of what he would give you. What human wouldn't?
I "flocked" to Trump because he was anti-abortion, he said he would appoint fed judges who would abide by the rule of law, and because I thought he would balance the budget. Oh well. 2 out of 3. I didn't want him, or any other pres, to "give" me anything. Never really have. I want the feds to leave me alone as much as possible. My trust is not in the government.
Great that you now realise that or are you like Trump, your leader full of itQuote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I said a huge number of fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation. Clearly, that did not mean an egg that continues within the womb. Otherwise, it would not be flushed out during menstruation. I am tempted to characterize your comment with the mis-understanding it deserves, but I'll refrain from doing so and again recommend you learn about menstruation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
According to Genesis, Adam was formed from dust ("From dust thou art, to dust thou shalt return") and also from clay - either one works.Quote:
You say the zygote cannot be made in God's image since that first occurred with Adam, and he was formed fully as an adult. The failure in logic comes in trying to determine where this "image" is imprinted. 3 month fetus? 8 month fetus? 2 year old child? 10 year old child? If not the zygote, then why not? Why are you making that arbitrary decision for the zygote but not for the 2 year old?
The failure in logic is all yours. You seem to be saying that Adam's imprint pre-existed Adam. That is not in the Bible (to use your phrase).
I never said that. I very clearly said viability IS a standard (one of them).Quote:
You very plainly tossed it out when you said you did not use viability as a standard.
I don't remember saying anything like that so maybe you misread what I wrote. I'll reply if you can give me the details of what you claim I wrote.Quote:
To say, as you do, that aborting a 24 week fetus is OK when you also acknowledge that the child could live outside the womb is what dismayed me.
1. I've already covered the menstruation argument earlier. I will say that there are not a "huge number" of fertilized eggs "flushed out" during one menstruation event. There could very well not be any. At any rate, it has nothing to do with whether or not the fertilized egg is a human being. You tried to suggest that not having a funeral for those lost lives was somehow significant in relation to the question of its humanity. It actually means absolutely nothing. It would be like saying that the people lost on the Titanic were not human since, after all, they had no funeral.
2. You still have not answered my question. You say that Adam was formed from dust bearing the image of God as a fully formed adult. You then make the unsupported assertion that the zygote does not have that image. So when does a developing human receive the image of God?
3. This is your quote concerning viability. "Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion." So you are rejecting viability as the primary standard. In many states a 30 weeks fetus can be aborted. To say that viability is "a standard" is pretty non-committal.
Viability means the ability to live outside the womb. In the quote above you clearly say that 24 weeks is an acceptable standard for viability. Do you remember now? And if you intend to include a heartbeat and brain waves as part of the decision, even though you attribute that to what "some" believe, then you have to go back much, much farther than 24 weeks. It just seems that you mention all of that, and then bail out and just go with Roe v Wade.Quote:
I don't remember saying anything like that so maybe you misread what I wrote. I'll reply if you can give me the details of what you claim I wrote.
I don't see how any person can say, " In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life," and then reject 24 weeks as a limit for abortion. You would be saying that there are three potential standards for determining "the beginning of life", but then refusing to use any of them. Then why even mention them?
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...th/3014473001/
Typically, pregnancies range from 38 to 42 weeks and babies are considered viable at 37 weeks. Across the country:
- 43 states restrict abortion by gestational age.
- 19 states ban abortion at 20 weeks of pregnancy.
- 5 states ban abortion at 24 weeks of pregnancy.
- 18 states ban abortion based on viability of the fetus.
Alabama has the most restrictive abortion law in the U.S., banning abortion at any stage of pregnancy and for any reason, including in cases of rape and incest. The law is on hold after a federal judge ruled the ban "defies the United States Constitution."
Virginia has a more lenient law than Alabama in terms of time frame and bans abortion at the third trimester, which begins at 25 weeks.
A 2018 report from the CDC found that in 2015, there were 638,169 reported abortions in the U.S. Of those, 65% of the procedures were performed at or before the eight-week mark and 91% were performed at or before the 13-week mark. Only 1.3% of abortions recorded were performed at 21 weeks or later.
That is completely ridiculous. Babies are born frequently several weeks premature and do well. No one considers 37 weeks to be the low range of viability. It is an absurd claim.Quote:
considered viable at 37 weeks.
"Although it continues to be an ethical dilemna and varies based on what part of the world a baby is born, most doctors define the age of viability as being about 24 weeks of gestation. In many hospitals, 24 weeks is the cutoff point for when doctors will use intensive medical intervention to attempt to save the life of a baby born prematurely."
https://www.verywellfamily.com/prema...bility-2371529
The number of abortions performed annually depends on who you listen to. The Guttmacher Institute reports about 850,000 a year. But imagine what this argument would sound like if we were discussing stillborn babies. "Oh, it's not a big deal. It's only a little more than six hundred thousand stillbirths a year. No big deal. They're not made in the image of God anyway. Sometimes they don't even receive funerals."
Now that is not intended to be sarcastic. It is based on what has been discussed here, on input from others.
Look the law up yourself before you dismiss the article as ridiculous. Viability is determined by the duly certified medical attendant within the applicable law and no one else. Maybe that doesn't meet your sense of morality or outrage but it is the law and there is a process when conditions warrant for extra measures.
In addition, literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.
What law are you referring to? Even Athos agreed that 24 weeks is the average age of viability. You are simply wrong. Even the New York law uses 24 weeks as a general figure, though you are correct in saying it is up to the doctor. That would be the guy making hundreds of dollars off of every abortion he can possibly perform. I'm sure there is no bias there.
First of all, that is "literally" untrue. A woman typically releases one egg per menstrual cycle. Her ovaries carry a limited number of eggs (several hundred) intended for a lifetime. Your figure of "a thousand" is preposterous.Quote:
literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.
https://www.enotes.com/homework-help...r%20so%20years.
But even if it was true, you rather cleverly tried to change the subject from zygotes, which are fertilized eggs, to "unfertilized eggs". That is not the topic.
That's not what happens. Your terminology is incorrect.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
It's a related topic. https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/how-many-eggs-does-a-woman-have#eggs-lostach-month
Your link is for OVULATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference.
Bingo! I suspect JL will serve time in Purgatory as a female.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
OK. I'll go real slow so you two can keep up. A woman ovulates about 14 days after her last period, usually with one egg. About two weeks later, her menstrual cycle ends and if the egg has not been fertilized and implanted, it is discharged. It is ONE egg, not a thousand which is crazy. To outline the number of eggs produced per cycle, you MUST talk about ovulation since that is when the ONE egg is released. Ovulation produces typically one egg which is usually discharged at the end of her cycle. One...egg...at...a...time. Get in now??? O..n...e---e...g...g----a..t----a----t...i...m...e. I'm sorry, but I just can't go any slower than that.Quote:
Your link is for OVU.LATION not MENSTRUATION, and no surprise you don't know the difference
My terminology was exactly correct. One....egg...per...menstrual...cycle. Bear in mind that a menstrual cycle is about a month long. You are the one confusing terminology. For the painfully uninformed among us, ovulation is a part of a woman's menstrual cycle.
A thousand eggs. Laughable. And to be so deceitful as to change the topic from zygotes to unfertilized eggs? Shameful. Purgatory for intentionally lying? Does that happen???
You really need to talk about something else. Your ignorance of the subject is pretty bad. But if you can find a doc that will back up your insanely stupid idea that a woman releases a thousand eggs at a time, I'll look at it. Prepare, however, to be disappointed. You would be much better served to simply admit you made a mistake.
No, you haven't.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
You are correct. I should have said during a woman's lifetime.Quote:
I will say that there are not a "huge number" of fertilized eggs "flushed out" during one menstruation event.
It has EVERYTHING to do with that.Quote:
At any rate, it has nothing to do with whether or not the fertilized egg is a human being.
I was trying to show you the absurdity of claiming life begins at conception. (When I say "life", I mean fully human life). If you truly believed life begins at conception, you would do something about those zygotes that are flushed out. Since you are not at all concerned about those human lives, I suspect your claim of being against abortion because it is murder is a convenient stance that is probably more political than anything. I say this based on your stated belief that abortion is your reason for supporting Trump. It may be the other way around.Quote:
You tried to suggest that not having a funeral for those lost lives was somehow significant in relation to the question of its humanity.
I never made that assertion. You have a habit of saying, "You made that assertion", when it is not true. I wish you would stop doing that. Or present a word-for-word direct quote for what you say I said.Quote:
You say that Adam was formed from dust bearing the image of God as a fully formed adult. You then make the unsupported assertion that the zygote does not have that image.
This is when. "So God created man in His own image". From the Book of Genesis. After that, God left the continuation of the species up to Adam and Eve - "Be fruitful and multiply". The Book does not say when a developing human receives the image of God.Quote:
[So when does a developing human receive the image of God?
You quoted me correctly. Thank you. Roe v Wade allows abortion through the second trimester. In certain cases, in the third trimester also.Quote:
3. This is your quote concerning viability. "Viability at 24 weeks is an average. It can be somewhat longer or sooner. In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life. As for me, I believe Roe V. Wade is the best rule available re abortion."
I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.Quote:
So you are rejecting viability as the primary standard.
No, I did NOT say that! I said 24 weeks is an AVERAGE standard.Quote:
In the quote above you clearly say that 24 weeks is an acceptable standard for viability.
No, here you are in that bad habit again, telling me what I believe. The heartbeat and brain were example of what SOME people maintain. It is not a standard I said I believe in.Quote:
And if you intend to include a heartbeat and brain waves as part of the decision,
Even though? That's exactly who I attributed it to - some. Or "some".Quote:
even though you attribute that to what "some" believe
I have to do nothing of the sort. I don't know how you make such statements. Now you're telling me what I have to DO, not just what I SAID, or what I THINK!Quote:
then you have to go back much, much farther than 24 weeks.
I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.Quote:
It just seems that you mention all of that, and then bail out and just go with Roe v Wade.
That's pretty obvious because there is so much you don't see with your misrepresentations of me doing, saying and thinking.Quote:
I don't see how any person can say,
I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.Quote:
In any case, viability was mentioned along with the heart and the brain as ways some determine the beginning of life," and then reject 24 weeks as a limit for abortion. You would be saying that there are three potential standards for determining "the beginning of life", but then refusing to use any of them. Then why even mention them?
Jl, if you would just present your case as you believe it with supporting facts as possible, I would be more than happy to read them and reply. Telling me what I'm thinking is not a good way to proceed. You can certainly ask me what I think, that's the civil way. But I may or may not give you an answer you like. That's the way these things are.
Oh? How's that?Quote:
It has EVERYTHING to do with that.
I gave you your own quote. Can't do more than that.Quote:
I don't know where you got that from. I never said that I was rejecting viability as the primary standard. In fact, Row v Wade is primarily based on viability.
No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.Quote:
I mentioned "all of that" because "all of that" was part of the discussion. How you got to"I bailed" out is beyond me.
Nope.Quote:
I think this question repeats an earlier one. I have answered that one, so I see no need to do it again.
With you guys, I'm just happy to get any kind of an answer. For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.Quote:
But I may or may not give you an answer you like.
You're a NUT!
You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!Quote:
No, it wasn't. You brought up the heartbeat, brain, and viability.
Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.Quote:
For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God.
It is not possible to misquote someone when you copy and paste their text. That's what I did. Own it.Quote:
You MISQUOTED me! I showed you that! Good grief!
That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.Quote:
Because it was part of the discussion on when life begins. Good grief 2!
See what I mean???Quote:
Why don't you tell us that one? You're the Bible guy.
Hey, I'm just glad we seem to have settled the silly, unbelievable argument (from Tal and WG) about a thousand eggs coming per cycle for women, or that ovulation is not a part of the menstrual cycle. At least that's progress. And I do appreciate your clarification of the comment you made as well, though I should point out that I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.
The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
https://extendfertility.com/how-many...e-every-month/
Quote:
But the fact is that there are tons of other eggs that don’t make it past that first stage. Each cycle, maybe 15–20 follicles are activated, but when they don’t mature, they get “reabsorbed” (AKA, they die). This process is called “atresia.”
And then—to make matters even worse—doctors estimate that we lose up to a thousand additional follicles each month, thanks to natural cell death. If you’re counting, that’s up to 1,021 eggs lost each month. Even if you’re pregnant, on birth control, or otherwise not ovulating. And the number lost each month accelerates as you age.
Case closed!
You quoted me word-for-word which I acknowledged and thanked you for. You misquoted me elsewhere for which I criticized you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
I never said I didn't bring them up. Show me the quote.Quote:
That's fine, but when you say you didn't bring them up, you are incorrect.
No, I don't. What do you mean? I should think you would know that since you ARE the Bible guy. Do you object to that?Quote:
See what I mean???
I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.Quote:
I know of no reason why there should be an assumption that the several hundred eggs released in the average woman's lifetime would be fertilized.
And so you were wrong and wrong. And what I referred to what not menstruation. It was the menstrual cycle. They are not the same thing. I tend to choose my words carefully.Quote:
The thousand-eggs idea wasn't what was being debated with you and wasn't what I responded to. It was ovulation vs. menstruation.
Tal, as is nearly always the case, you didn't bother to read your own link. The FIRST statement made is this. "Well, you’re halfway right. You ovulate one egg per month, usually. This is the single egg that makes it through the whole ovulatory process: the egg follicle is activated, the egg grows and matures, and then—once it reaches maturation—it breaks free from the ovary and begins on its journey down the Fallopian tubes. That’s ovulation."
As anyone with knowledge can tell you, the follicle has the potential to become and release a mature egg, but nearly always does not. Don't believe me? Read it for yourself. And by the way, my link is not some med site trying to get women to pay good money for their services.
An ovarian follicle is a roughly spheroid cellular aggregation set found in the ovaries. It secretes hormones that influence stages of the menstrual cycle. Women begin puberty with about 400,000 follicles,[1] each with the potential to release an egg cell (ovum) at ovulation for fertilization.[2] These eggs are developed once every menstrual cycle."
And to make matters worse (for you), this is your quote. Note that you claimed all these hundreds of imaginary eggs were, "washed from the uterus". Well...nope.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_follicleQuote:
literally a thousand unfertilized eggs are washed from the uterus during mensuration.
As you said, "Case closed."
This has got to be the funniest thing I've seen here in months.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Where? And bear in mind that quotes have those quotation marks around them. Paraphrases are not quotes as we settled what seems like a hundred years ago.Quote:
You misquoted me elsewhere
I asked a question. You did not answer it. Parr for the course. Honestly, I knew you wouldn't. Of the three of you, Tal is the only one who will take a stab at answering difficult questions. But I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."Quote:
No, I don't. What do you mean?
This is the statement of yours I was referring to. "I said a huge number of fertilized eggs are flushed out during menstruation." I suppose we can debate what a "huge" number is. To take it to mean several hundred would certainly not be a stretch at all. But if you consider 80, for example, to be a "huge number", then that would explain what possibly was a misunderstanding.Quote:
I never said any such thing. When you so badly write things like you have - that's a sign of really being desperate. When your thoughts are public like they are here, your reputation suffers.
My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.
as I said elsewhere; DeludedQuote:
My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.
Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.Quote:
Originally Posted by jlisenbe
Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.Quote:
I asked a question. I'll repost it for your benefit. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."
You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.Quote:
My thoughts public? I'm happy to be in that situation. Gloriously happy.
In other words, you have no clue. I have not misquoted you and you know it.Quote:
Go find it yourself - it's right there in front of your nose. I'm tired of doing your work for you.
Excuses, excuses. You're just afraid to answer it. It's still a legit question for the man who claimed to know where the image of God was NOT (zygote), to ask where the image of God begins. "For instance, you still haven't told us when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God."Quote:
Here's why I didn't answer it --- because you are putting words in my mouth that I never said. This is one of your most annoying habits and you do it far too frequently. Your question assumes I said I would tell you "when the developing human can be said to be made in the image of God." I never made that statement. YOU DID! What I did say, was that you're the Bible guy so you should provide the answer.
I said I'm happy to have MY thoughts pubic, not the foolish comments of others. That's why I don't engage in name-calling the way you do, though in fairness you have improved in that area. Like I've said, when people run out of legit answers, they go to name-calling. It is simply the result of that person's aggravation at having no answers. They are wrong and don't want to admit it.Quote:
You enjoy being called a nut? Twice? Gloriously? You got your wish.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:58 AM. |