I agree that the rock metaphor was not the best, but it fit the original misstatement best. The rock metaphor is still, however, more accurate than calling it a person. Perhaps we can turn to another poster for a better example:Notice he also recommended a 20-wk cutoff for something that is thought to occur at 30wks. Mentioning it at 12 wks would, in most cases, be manipulative at best. Whether the patient needs to know, would find such knowledge emotionally disturbing, or would even care if told are all judgement calls by their doctor(s), just like what constitutes an appropriate time frame.

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

I've come to the conclusion that people who are vehemently "pro-life" have absolutly no idea what "choice" is actually supposed to mean.

__________________
Is our children learning? -George W. Bush

"I think—tide turning—see, as I remember—I was raised in the desert, but tides kind of—it's easy to see a tide turn—did I say those words?"—Washington, D.C., June 14, 2006

"[T]he illiteracy level of our children are appalling."—Washington, D.C., Jan. 23, 2004

I agree, it certainly wouldn't hurt to be informed of the possibility. Tho from what I know of it. The early pain reported is nothing more than automatic and involuntary reaction to pressure and movement.

Nonsense. Perhaps the problem is that you don't know what the prefix Pro- means before ANY word.

Saying it's a rock is nowhere near correct because rocks don't grow and develop like a fetus. Basically a rock does nothing but a fetus is completely different. Facts like these prove that the fetus is alive. Plus, there is a difference between a fetus and a cow. Where did the fetus come from? Did it not come from human beings? If it is alive then it must be a type of life and being that it came from humans it must therefore be a human life. Thus it is entitled to all the inalienable rights that every human being has.

The way you talk, it almost seems like you would permit killing of a handicapped person if certain parts of their brains or central nervous systems weren't developped fully.

Key words: thought to occur. That means it hasn't been proven yet. You can't just say that we should do or not do something based upon an assumption like that. If we don't know for sure then it is better to be safe than sorry.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

Yes, it should have the same rights as my thumb, or as any other non-viable, non-person, conglomeration of human cells you'd care to mention.

Depending on one's definition of 'fully', there's no "almost seems" to it. Actually, I guess it comes more down to one's definition of 'person', because that's where I draw the line. Do they exhibit signs of personhood? Personality, self-awareness, or probably a few other measures I'm not thinking of at the moment? Then they're a person, and persons have rights. If they're a non-sentient drooling machine that happens to have some human DNA, then they're entitled to whatever rights their immediate care givers decide to provide at their own expense.

So, we can't say one should or should not do something, but we can Legislate that they do something? Thank you for making the dogmatic hypocrisy of your position more plain than I ever could! If we're Not sure, shouldn't we err on the side of the comfort and peace of mind of the potential mother, since we can all agree that she is a person and has rights? Telling her such unproven theories amounts to psychological abuse! And you not only advocate doing so, but doing so in a time frame when, as best we can tell, it can't possibly be warranted?!? You sound more pro-torture than pro-life!

__________________
Today's forecast: Government corruption.

Tomorrow's forecast: 100% chance of more 'politics as usual'

Maybe it's finally time to vote Libertarian

It’s a bumper sticker, right.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

It certainly should be pointed out.
These women who have been conditioned that there not with child are scarred for life when they hear there baby screaming.
There not expecting to hear what they’ve been conditioned to perceive as something not to interfere with there career bleeding, screaming and kicking as they lay him on a surgical tray. They can‘t throw it away until it dies. It’s been recorded some take the whole afternoon and are left on the tray overnight alone, dying in agony.
Now I ask you, what kind of human being can turn off the lights and lock the door hearing the baby still screaming in the back room? My God, what is wrong with these people? At least hold it and make it warm until it dies. No one should die in agony alone and cold. Especially when all it knew was the safety and warmth if his mothers womb.
You people make my heart ache.

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

I agree...

Adoption and private adoption is the key.

If a woman or a cuple have an un-planned pregnancy why not just go the private route and let a couple that wants to have a child parents? it works out both ways.

In most cases only selfish people have abortions. It's not right.

__________________
America’s political correctness is a disease that will bring down our once fine nation.

If cutting off your thumb meant ending life entirely for you then it would mean a violation. At the same time though, it isn't right for another person to harm limb either so either way you look at it, abortion is still wrong. To be flat out honest though the first is what applies. You're ending a life 100%, you can't compare it to harming your thumb.

That's a falsehood if ever I heard one. So let me get this straight, if someone isn't fully developped then we can kill them. (sarcasm)Oh hey look, there's a person that has no arm, that's certainly not developped enough. I guess I should kill them. Oh look, there's also a person in a coma.(endsarcasm) I don't mean that in a condescending way. I just wanted to point out the falsehood in that statement.

Now I have to appologise in advance but you've hit me in an area that hurts. My brother is handicapped and could fall under that category. My Grandma fell under that category during parts of her life. Does that mean I should be able to kill them?

Actually, I think the opposite is true.

No we should err on the side of preserving an "inalienable right".

Appeal to emotion fallacy. Trying to make me out to be the badguy eh? I'm not the one saying that we should kill here. And give me a break, "psychological abuse". I suppose it's also terribly abusive of me to say killing an innocent life for personal profit is wrong. Come off your ridiculous rants.

__________________
Serious Quotes:


Funny But True Quotes
Those who argue for complete secularism are funny. They see what government does and then argue that we don't need it to start with prayer.

The pro-death crowed is so engaged in defense, normalization and justification of what they do, “they fail to see what it is they do.”
Giving the baby pain medication would be an acknowledgment of it’s being an aware, living and conscience little baby. That would conflict with there conditioning and propaganda strategies.
These horrible evil people make me sick.

(There conditioning is so effective on supporters, more then half think it’s a right and don’t know Roe vs. Wade was simply a class action lawsuit.)

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

There overstepping there own arrogance as to say consciousness is but a level of Nero paths and memory center development. How can they be certain the awareness itself doesn’t trigger there construction at a rate parallel to it’s need and usage.
Evidence regarding fetal pain is limited to hormone responses. Science is not exact enough to base decisions that these responses are pain conduits or by-products caused by physical reaction. (It may be that physical reaction to pain is not possible until 20 weeks gestation.)

__________________
Only a liberal would know how hard it is to get a nicotine patch to stick to a monkey.

Using charged words to demonize someone you disagree with is a tactic of a weak argument and mind. I am no more "pro-death" than you are "anti-freedom" my semi-literate friend. Furthermore, you equally guilty of "failing to see what it is you do" when you CHOOSE to ignore the results of forcing people make a very difficult CHOICE about a situation that you will never face.

Just for starters, we are not talking about "babies." "Babies" have already been born. Yet another attempt by you to demonize by using INCORRECT TERMINOLGY. And you then have the gall to talk about "conditioning and propaganda strategies." Shame on you, hypocrite.

Too bad, so sad. Get over it.

Well alllllllllllllllllllrightie then.....

...that really makes your argument for you!

Before Hitler could get the German people to go along with the final solution for the Jews he needed to get the people to first use a different name for people.
Hitler was aware calling the Jews people would make it hard for the German people to accept his killing of th Jews.
People that defend abortion do not like to use the word baby to describe what they are killing because it is easier to kill a thing then it is a person. The only thing that can come from a pregnancy is a baby.
But then again when you considered who gets abortions one must make allowances for that. It is one way to thin out the leftist aka progressives.

Or perhaps a placibo for those diehards that beleive the Fetus can feel pain, Course it could also be a precaution for those who think. "Well the Nuts are wrong, but what can it hurt? A wasted precaution, but SO???