a human embryo

[blunt_trauma]

^^ 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.

[4est_4est_Gump]

When life is devalued, so too is Liberty.




What good is it to be born slave?

[4est_4est_Gump]

Should we, by that standard begin euthanizing the retarded?




Two days in a coma and you're outta here?

[SaintPeter]

It is not your pussy.

It is not your liberty.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

Should we, by that standard begin euthanizing the retarded?




Two days in a coma and you're outta here?

well, as a society, america kinda does that by withholding access to medical treatment to all but the wealthy.

but your premise is false anyway, because 'the retarded' as you so quaintly refer to them, are sentient beings with feelings and emotions and an existence independent of a host body. once a fetus gets to the point of independent existence and sensory perception then in my opinion abortion is unethical unless the pregnancy would result in maternal death.

[4est_4est_Gump]

Originally Posted by Kybele

well, as a society, america kinda does that by withholding access to medical treatment to all but the wealthy.

...

A simple fallacy of ignorance.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

A simple fallacy of ignorance.

are you saying that adults with mild to severe learning difficulties have the same access to healthcare as say... sarah palin?

[4est_4est_Gump]

The same, or access?

No health system anywhere ever developed can compete with what the rich get, not even yours.

You keep trying to portray ours as none. It is not.

Quit trying to pick your pet causes as demonstrative of the whole.

[HB1965]

Originally Posted by Kybele

are you saying that adults with mild to severe learning difficulties have the same access to healthcare as say... sarah palin?

As long as they have a social worker or a guardian to keep up on the reevaluations, in some states they have better health care than Sarah Palin

[berry juice]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

^^ 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.

this could be a great person one day, someone that might even save the humanity, a king, a president, a friend who saved your life, a scientist who found the cure for cancer. You never know. Because even thou this little creature is still not complete - there's life already inside its little body and it grows stronger every day.

I am neither pro- or anti abortion but if it was up to me - I'd probably never have an abortion

[Frizzle_Fry]

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

A simple fallacy of ignorance.

is it? they why dose every other first world country have universal health care that covers boo boo's to cancer and organ transplants for a fraction of what we pay?

Why dose a bottle of pills in the US cost hundreds or thousands of dollars per bottle when the same damn pills in any other country cost a mere fraction what we pay? Oh and if you get them out of country because it is the only way to afford it then you have the DEA waiting for you to put you in jail.

Why when I paid out of pocket for my MRI did it cost 600 bucks, but when they billed the insurance (gov. Tricare military ins.) did they charge 12,000 dollars?

If you can give a legit answer to any one of these questions then please enlighten me. If you really think our health care system is not completely corrupt and broken at the expense of the citizens then you are the ignorant one buying into a fallacy.

[32_22_32]

Originally Posted by berry juice

this could be a great person one day, someone that might even save the humanity, a king, a president, a friend who saved your life, a scientist who found the cure for cancer. You never know. Because even thou this little creature is still not complete - there's life already inside its little body and it grows stronger every day.

I am neither pro- or anti abortion but if it was up to me - I'd probably never have an abortion

I find it interesting that you chose 'it' and 'this' as your pronouns. I use those for objects, not for persons.

[berry juice]

Originally Posted by 32_22_32

I find it interesting that you chose 'it' and 'this' as your pronouns. I use those for objects, not for persons.

it's a blob, not a person yet. a blob with tremendous potential. I'd give it a chance

[Lancecastor]

Dolf lowers the bar to an abortion thread!

[Wobnoid]

It's supposed to be a disturbing/fascinating image. It is an image, though. Nature does not display an embryo so. It is a demonstration - using something by no means viable - something dead - something vivisected. It is shocking and fascinating and... only through transference can we assign humanity to that collection of cells represented by the image. There is a subtle point to this. What is represented sets a mindstorm only if we assign any or all of the intangible factors that any of us might consider human life. Picture or not. The battleground on these issues remain in our heads.

We struggle with assignment of humanity/viability/etc... to something that in nature, the more we disturb, the more we potentially damage. When we do observe it, it is from afar, relatively. We cannot touch it if it is to be viable. That it is fragile does not make it viably human, though that is a factor. That it has potential does not make it viably human. Bacteria, viruses, cancers all have potentials. They are not human. But, potential is a factor in determining the status of the cells before us. Is there a switch thrown - a hurdle passed - some scientific data point achieved to designate the human-ness in this life? Yeah. I'm going to answer that in a post on a porn board! Clearly there is a point at which the cell growth is viable as a human. There is a point at which the human is viable (with assistance) beyond the embryo. There is the point at which it can be born. But... there is a reason why metaphysics is so slippery to define. The mysteries of life as such are... metaphysical.

The issues remain intellectual - mystical - intangible and divisive. In short, your picture represents a totally unviable collection of fascinating cells. It quite forcefully suggests a discussion that goes far beyond the dismissive that... "looking at that stage, i find it hard to understand the passion of the antiabortionists". It's something beyond cold science.

[bronzeage]

Originally Posted by blunt_trauma

^^ 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.

If you kill it, is it dead?

[neci]

i could never have an abortion, but i don't believe in making that decision for someone else.

[evesdream]

Originally Posted by Wobnoid

It's supposed to be a disturbing/fascinating image. It is an image, though. Nature does not display an embryo so. It is a demonstration - using something by no means viable - something dead - something vivisected. It is shocking and fascinating and... only through transference can we assign humanity to that collection of cells represented by the image. There is a subtle point to this. What is represented sets a mindstorm only if we assign any or all of the intangible factors that any of us might consider human life. Picture or not. The battleground on these issues remain in our heads.

We struggle with assignment of humanity/viability/etc... to something that in nature, the more we disturb, the more we potentially damage. When we do observe it, it is from afar, relatively. We cannot touch it if it is to be viable. That it is fragile does not make it viably human, though that is a factor. That it has potential does not make it viably human. Bacteria, viruses, cancers all have potentials. They are not human. But, potential is a factor in determining the status of the cells before us. Is there a switch thrown - a hurdle passed - some scientific data point achieved to designate the human-ness in this life? Yeah. I'm going to answer that in a post on a porn board! Clearly there is a point at which the cell growth is viable as a human. There is a point at which the human is viable (with assistance) beyond the embryo. There is the point at which it can be born. But... there is a reason why metaphysics is so slippery to define. The mysteries of life as such are... metaphysical.

The issues remain intellectual - mystical - intangible and divisive. In short, your picture represents a totally unviable collection of fascinating cells. It quite forcefully suggests a discussion that goes far beyond the dismissive that... "looking at that stage, i find it hard to understand the passion of the antiabortionists". It's something beyond cold science.

You're totally on point.
I wish I hadn't seen the OP picture it grosses me out.

[evesdream]

Originally Posted by bronzeage

If you kill it, is it dead?

Do you ask the same question when you jack off to the tune of a million sperm?
The question was "Kill what?"

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by berry juice

this could be a great person one day, someone that might even save the humanity, a king, a president, a friend who saved your life, a scientist who found the cure for cancer. You never know. Because even thou this little creature is still not complete - there's life already inside its little body and it grows stronger every day.

I am neither pro- or anti abortion but if it was up to me - I'd probably never have an abortion

it could be the next hitler, a wife beater or a paedophile too...
i only say that to balance out the romance.

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by bronzeage

If you kill it, is it dead?

the same can be said of a fish.

[phrodeau]

Obviously, it only becomes a person when you can tell what race it is.

Originally Posted by 4est_4est_Gump

The same, or access?

No health system anywhere ever developed can compete with what the rich get, not even yours.

You keep trying to portray ours as none. It is not.

Quit trying to pick your pet causes as demonstrative of the whole.

Originally Posted by HB1965

As long as they have a social worker or a guardian to keep up on the reevaluations, in some states they have better health care than Sarah Palin

these guys would disagree with both of you...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18373987

[Once-ler]

It kind of disturbs me that someone called this image "disturbing". Never play Dantes inferno. The unbaptized babies will make you shit your pants. I actually really like fetus imagry. You watch the spectrum of human evolition as the kid develops throwbacks- gills, a tail, and loses them- Prenatal development is both facinating and adorable.

Abortions not my cup of coffee, but i dont have a uterus, so some would say they dont give a shit what i think. Either way, i do think its wrong to bitch at people who've had abortions. They've alteady been through so much- its not like its a spur of the moment decision.

For me, a zygote is alive. My ideas, however, are irrelivant. Im not a woman. Im not a doctor.

Our healthcare system is a joke. I miss my kchip!

[blunt_trauma]

Originally Posted by Wobnoid

It quite forcefully suggests a discussion that goes far beyond the dismissive that... "looking at that stage, i find it hard to understand the passion of the antiabortionists".

it's a good picture.
i'm naming it bob.