a human embryo

.


  • Total voters
    38
anyone notice the embyo isn't wearing clothes?

I thought kiddie porn was verboten on Lit...:confused:
 
On the meat thing... I think that's a good analogy. I think my "species preservation over self-preservation" drive is just set really high for some reason. I think that the older something gets, the less I care if it lives. Like I'll eat beef before veal- well, hell, I won't eat veal, because that's torturing babies, not just killing them, but you get what I mean.

But that's easy for me to say, because I'm never going to have to make that decision. For me, it'd probably be a lot more difficult then for someone who didn't feel the way I do, so it's actually a disadvantage. It's weird to, because I can usually rationalize away raw emotion, but...

I think what I would actually do if an abortion thing really ever came up, was ask what we were gonna do. I wouldn't give any kind of input until she decided except, you know, whatever positive shit I could think of of whatever she was talking about, just not, you know, on one side or the other, and then I would deal with it. It's freaky to think about, because for most people, it's not a "is it alive or not" thing like most people try to make it- the vast majority of abortions are medical, not elective- so...

But I'm bad for that- as soon as the strip turns blue I'm painting baby bugs bunnies on the wall and buying cribs. And since a whopping 80% (found this out later) of pregnancies in the US can miscarry after that test, but so early that the zygote never makes it to the uterus wall. But you get to go to college instead of having to grow up, so it's a trade-off. A really weird trade off-
 
I voted option 3, because in that picture I see a little being with potential - even if it's modest potential - busy growing into somebody, and so helpless and reliant on the goodwill of the one who controls the womb it inhabits.

It's a purely emotional response. At the same time, I understand that it's a purely emotional response.

Hence, option 3.
 
An american state filled with lots of mongoloids...

but still, the state amendment got shut down.

:confused:

Mon·gol·oid (mngg-loid, mn-)
adj.
1. Anthropology Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation, straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive Of or relating to Down syndrome.
n.
1. Anthropology A member of the Mongoloid racial classification.
2. also mongoloid Offensive A person affected with Down syndrome
 
:confused:

Mon·gol·oid (mngg-loid, mn-)
adj.
1. Anthropology Of or being a major human racial classification traditionally distinguished by physical characteristics such as yellowish-brown skin pigmentation, straight black hair, dark eyes with pronounced epicanthic folds, and prominent cheekbones and including peoples indigenous to central and eastern Asia. See Usage Note at race1.
2. Characteristic of or resembling a Mongol.
3. also mongoloid Offensive Of or relating to Down syndrome.
n.
1. Anthropology A member of the Mongoloid racial classification.
2. also mongoloid Offensive A person affected with Down syndrome

i thought it was only people over 60 who still used that word to describe people with down's.
 
tumblr_lu9z0hgkJw1qmgag8o1_500.jpg
 
attachment.php


^^ i look at that and i see limbs, a head, eyes.
but i don't see a person.
it's brain is incomplete. it's thoughts and emotions are no more complex than those of a fish.
i can't pinpoint the moment where that little creature becomes a person though. somewhere between conception and birth f'sure.
looking at that stage, i find it hard to understand the passion of the antiabortionists.

"Person-hood" is not the issue. Neither is 'nonviable tissue mass.'

If you were to perform a DNA test you would find that that fetus is undeniably human.

As you well know, I'm not an antiabortionist, but I do acknowledge the core of the debate. If you can discard a human at 8 weeks, then why not 2 years? Or for that matter any individual that is incapable of fending for themselves? It's not a religious issue, although many tend to couch it in those terms. It's a moral issue, does the law extend itself to protect those incapable of protecting themselves or not? And if not, why not? What are the parameters that guide us as to what form of human is protected? And why one and not the other?

We are told by the proponents that it's a "woman's prerogative." She is free to do with her body as she will. The first question is just what gives a woman the right to decide life or death without the victim of the execution having an advocate? After all when it's all said and done that is exactly what's occurring, an execution.

And if we're to buy in to the whole "free to do with her body" gambit then why should prostitution be illegal? Or even regulated for that matter? Why aren't women up in arms over that legal restriction?

Indeed, to not recognize the fetus as human is to engage in a form of rationalization that cannot be supported by any science I know of.

Ishmael
 
By the way, I think some of you are being total fetuses in this discussion.
 
Back
Top