I have asked repeatedly for you to prove a single lie that I have told and you repeatedly can't do it. You simply answer with more lies which, by the way, I do prove.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

I was saying that you clearly showed you were pro life, never did I say you were biased toward fact rather than misrepresentation and lies. Though denying the attachment of the fetus to the mother's body may prove me wrong.






I was physically attached but after I was birthed and disconnected I was no longer a fetus, I was a named individual who didn't require a placenta or a special environment. Though I was human I wasn't completely my own person. in turn those rights did not apply to me.





So if a baby kills a mother during birth, does it go to court?



You failed to prove that it wasn't. I would go with the fact that the fetus is attached to the umbilical cord, the umbilical cord is attached to the placenta, and the placenta is attached to the body of the pregnant woman. Therefore it is part of her body and in turn allows her to decide it's fate.

It being part of the female body, she is allowed to decide what experiments are performed on it. I don't see how her willingly saying "please remove this thing" is not accepting permission.



seeing that it is in turn a piece of her body, I don't understand how this is all untrue. Please elaborate




As stated before, the fetus is attached to the umbilical cord, the umbilical cord is attached to the placenta, and the placenta is attached to the body of the pregnant woman. Are you going to deny the truth and claim that a fetus is living but not gaining nourishment from the mother?



You see it as a living being, I see it as a part of the female body...If a picture is worth a thousand words, how come each is different? Are you saying that someone else's perception of this picture is wrong?

__________________
PATRIOTISM IS NATIONALISM

Are you drunk OB??? To much tequila again???

__________________
Smile, it makes people wonder what you've been up to....

Being inside of or attatched to does not make you part of.

Being inside of or attatched to does not make you part of.

Fetus, infant, toddler, embryo, adolescent, blastocyst, old geezer, zygote. All are words we use to describe a human being in various stages of thier life. You are no less human as an infant than you are as an adult and no more human as an adult than you were as a zygote. Human being is the kind of creature you are, not the degree to which you manifest your potential.

And you went from requiring one special environment to requiring another special environment. The parameters for the environment that supports your life are as narrow on the outside as they were on the inside. Arguably more narrow on the outside because technically, it would have been possible for you to have survived environments before you were born that would have killed your mother.

As to being an individual, you have always been one. Being dependent does not make you any less human and it does not make you any less "your own person" whatever meaning you attatch to that term. You have been exactly what you are from the time you were concieved. You have not become more human and as such, have not become more deserving of your basic human rights.

I have never said that a woman whose life is in danger due to a pregnancy does not have the right to defend her self by terminating the pregnancy. Suggesting that "sometimes" women die during pregnancy is not, however, a valid reason to kill a child. 1 in 12,000 is the chance of having life threatening problems during a pregnancy. Walk through a bad neighborhood, kill some seedy looking character and tell the judge that he represented at least a 1 in 12,000 chance of being a threat to your life. Let me know how that works out for you.

You are asking me to prove a negative? I am afraid that I can't do that but I can prove that the child is an individual (individual being a distinct and indivisible entity) which would preclude it being part of its mother.

"Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human being is thereby formed"Ronan R. O'Rahilly, Fabiola Muller, HUMAN EMBRYOLOGY & TERATOLOGY , (New York: Wiley-Liss), 5-55.


"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company), 2-18.

"In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ... Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ... resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point... This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development."Essentials of Human Embryology William J. Larsen, (New York: Churchill Livingstone), 1-17.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."Human Embryology, 3rd ed. Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill), 43.

If you need further evidence that the child is not part of its mother's body and are willing to do more intensive study first so as to be able to understand what is being said, you might check these studies out as well.

Munn, D.H. et al., Prevention of allogeneic fetal rejection by tryptophan catabolism, Science 281(5380):1122–1124, 1998.

Kudo, Y. and Boyd, C.A., Human placental indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase: cellular localization and characterization of an enzyme preventing fetal rejection, Biochim. Biophys. Acta. 1500(1):119–124, 2000.

Suzuki, S. et al., Expression of indoleamine 2,3-dioxygenase and tryptophan 2,3-dioxygenase in early concepti, Biochem. J. 355(2):425–429, 2001.


Now once again, I invite you to provide some credible science to corroborate your, so far, unsubstantiated opinion. The fact that you believe what you believe does not make it true, it only shows that you don't have a very good grasp of developmental biology and are the sort of person who is willing to hold an irrationally strong opinion on a subject when you obviously know very little about the subject.


(continued)

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

(continuation)

Since we have effectively shown that it is not part of the mother's body, we can dispense with this fallacious argument. Unless, of course, you can provide some credible science that states that it is part of her body. Otherwise simply conceed the point and move on.

Irrelavent since you are not going to be able to prove that it is part of its mother's body. If it were true, this sort of science would be as easy to produce as science showing that it is not part of her body is. Your position, apparently, is based on fantasy, things you, or someone you trust has made up.

Inside of, or attatched to does not constitute part of. And you have yet to show any legal precedent for dependence being a valid reason to kill.

I am not operating from what I believe and I am not fabricating my position out of whole cloth. How you see a thing and how I see a thing is completely irrelavent if there is proof of that thing that shows that we are undeniably wrong. If the way you "see a thing" is based on ignorance of the subject, how you "see" it means nothing beyond the fact that you really don't have enough knowledge at your disposal to know what you are seeing.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new human being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition." E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, PATHOLOGY OF THE FETUS AND THE INFANT, 3d ed. (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers,), vii.

"Not only is it a life, but, “by its intrinsic biological nature,” it is a human being from the moment of conception, for “it can be nothing else."E. Bleschmidt, THE BEGINNING OF HUMAN LIFE 16–17

Nealis v. Baird, 996 P.2d 438, 453 (Okla. 1999) “Contemporary scientific precepts accept as a given that a human life begins at conception.” (citing KEITH L. MOORE & T.V.N. PERSAUD, THE DEVELOPING HUMAN 14 (5th ed.); SUSAN TUCKER BLACKBURN & DONNA LEE LOPER, MATERNAL, FETAL AND NEONATAL PHYSIOLOGY: A CLINICAL PERSPECTIVE 49; MICHAEL R. HARRISON ET AL., THE UNBORN PATIENT: PRENATAL DIAGNOSIS AND TREATMENT 14; DALE RUSSELL DUNNIHOO, M.D., PH.D., FUNDAMENTALS OF GYNECOLOGY AND OBSTETRICS 286–99

Physicians, biologists, and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being—a being that is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings." John C. Fletcher, Mark I. Evans, "Maternal Bonding in Early Fetal Ultrasound Examinations," New England Journal of Medicine, February 17, 1983.

You will note that the references I have provided are from medical school textbooks in the subjects of developmental biology, embryology, fetology, and OB/Gyn as well as respected, peer reviewed medical journals.


Again, I welcome and invite you to provide some credible science that states explicitly that unborns are not alive or that they are part of their mother's bodies or proves any of the other misconceptions that you are presently operating under.

I am interested to see if you continue to hold your pro choice position when all of your arguments are shown beyond any doubt to be false. If you are a typical pro choicer, you will. Are you typical?

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

It is clear that you can't answer the question lexi. I have asked you over and over to point out even one lie and you invariably reply with a dodge like this one. Point out the lies. Bring them here for examination.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

I just did that on another thread..

Abortion and the Morning after Pill, Comment 310 by Palerider..

Quote by Palrider:
Doctors who run abortion clinics are operating a slaugherhouse. The women come in through the chute, pass through the styles and exit not to be seen again unless they are returning for the same purpose. The cost per visit is much higher than you would pay to any general doctor for an office visit and the doctor sees more women.
Prove this lie Pale..

__________________
Smile, it makes people wonder what you've been up to....

That is the best you can do lexi? Are you saying that my description of an abortion clinic as a slaugherhouse is as close as you can get to a lie told by the pro life side of the argument? That is really it? All of your howling over the lies of the pro life side is about me characterizing abortion clinics as slaugherhouses? You are genuinely pathetic. You like to call names, but your actions speak to the sort of person you are.

I have news for you. You may not like my characterization of abortion clinics, but it is not a lie. Your sig line, on the other hand, is just the latest in a long string of blatant lies as it is your own quote and you have put my name to it.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi

That's good enough to prove you a liar and about as bad as you can get...

__________________
Smile, it makes people wonder what you've been up to....

Well, you might have proved that I used a metaphor but a lie? No. In order to prove a lie, you must catch me claiming one thing is true, and then catch me claiming that something else is true. Face it lexi, you just aren't smart enough for this conversation.

__________________
"It's not alive, It's not alive, It's not alive. Because I said it isnt', there's your proof jerk." ...lexi